Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Textile Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about the United Kingdom textile industry, because of a meeting that I had in the Christmas recess with the management and union representatives at John Heathcoat, a very important company in my constituency.
Let me begin by putting into context the company's importance in my constituency and the contribution that it makes to the UK textile industry. In the early 1800s, John Heathcoat invented the revolutionary plain net-making machine and he set up a company to manufacture net in 1808, moving down to Tiverton in 1816 following problems with the Luddites in the midlands. That is the end of the history lesson.
The company is well established and has been in my constituency for a great many years. It is a private company, with all the share capital residing in the Tiverton area. That gives it the freedom to move quickly to get new products into the marketplace. It has a varied manufacturing base, with weaving, warp knitting—both industrial and apparel—weft or jersey knitting, and dyeing and finishing.
Last year, the company had a turnover of £37.8 million and achieved a pre-tax profit of £3.9 million. Although still profitable, the company, along with most in the manufacturing industry, is finding the present situation difficult and is doubtful that last year's profit figures will be matched this year.
The company continues to reinvest heavily in new machinery and techniques, and over the past five years has averaged more than £2 million a year in capital investment, all financed through its own resources. It currently provides 550 jobs in the south-west, spread across all levels of operative administration, technical and senior management. It operates 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It has products that people want to buy and keeps its work force fully employed.
John Heathcoat operates mainly in niche areas of business and runs its own research and development unit, focusing on customers' needs and the solutions that they require, with a degree of confidentiality that many other companies find it difficult to match. Among its products are woven fabrics for car airbags and toothed load-transmission belts; parachute fabrics for the Ministry of Defence and other countries; geotextile mattress fabrics; sailcloths—its sailcloth was on Lisa Clayton's

"Spirit of Birmingham" for her single-handed round-the-world trip; specialist seating fabric for the new Mercedes smart car; and fabrics using knitted spacer technology, now extensively used in cot mattresses to help to provide airways for the baby if it rolls onto its face. A development of that technology is now being trialled for intimate apparel.
Heathcoat is one of the largest producers of bridal and dress net in Europe and supplies those fabrics globally. Heathcoat net fabrics are used by the Kirov, Bolshoi and National ballet companies. Its industrial warp knits are used in hose reinforcement in high-temperature and high-pressure hose manufacture and in protective garments for chainsaw users.
The company has deliberately chosen to invest in and make products for a wide variety of niche markets. It is not merely producing mass products that might have competition from the far east; it has deliberately invested in producing quality, value-added products that are needed both at home and abroad.
The company's jersey fabric is used for a wide range of garments sold in the larger UK retail stores and it has an export trade in specialist fabrics for riding wear. It also produces fabrics for career wear—uniforms—used by banks, building societies and retail outlets, and apparel for use in hostile working environments, including fire-resistant and acid-resistant treated fabrics.
As well as providing an in-house service, the company's dyeing and finishing unit offers a commission dyeing service to other manufacturers and converters selling to the major UK chain stores.
Last year, 45 per cent. of the company's turnover was direct export. It has been very successful and has not rested on its laurels or been overtaken by commercial or scientific developments; rather, it has been involved in innovation in this country's textile industry. It has also paid attention to its environmental performance, being sensitive to the area of great natural beauty in which we in Devon are privileged to live. Last year, the company achieved accreditation to the international environmental management system ISO 14001—becoming the first textile company incorporating dyeing and finishing processes to achieve that accreditation in the UK. All staff on site received environmental awareness training as part of the programme.
On the quality side, the company has been registered to ISO 9002 since 1989, and is currently working to achieve ISO 9001—design and development aspects for quality systems—which it hopes to achieve this year. For many years, the company has enjoyed a good working relationship with its recognised union, the Transport and General Workers Union, with which the company works closely to ensure that it remains at the forefront of technology and achieves the best productivity commensurate with its chosen role in niche markets. At my meeting at the beginning of January with unions and management, I was worried that such a company should be concerned for the future of the industry.
Last week, the Prime Minister was asked about job losses at Wrangler jeans by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan), who suggested that the crisis facing the entire clothing and textile industry in this country was


due mainly to high interest rates and the high value of sterling. That view has been commented on by the British Apparel and Textile Confederation, which said recently:
Whilst the recent fall in interest rates is to be welcomed, it will be at least six months before its benefits begin to flow through into the economy and thus into the industry. The damage had already been done with the high interest rates we have had to endure over many months.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my hon. Friend accept that, as regards niche markets, exports are important for the industry as a whole—particularly in the east midlands? We accept that there are problems with sourcing by major retailers, but the industry has managed to capture a number of niche markets. My hon. Friend mentioned a firm in her constituency, and a number of firms in the east midlands have also looked at those niche markets. That is why the export market is particularly important to the textile industry, and that is why it is particularly vulnerable when we have high levels of sterling.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The strength of sterling has led to exports becoming increasingly difficult, and that has been compounded by economic problems in some of our major markets. In addition, imports have become cheaper.
Over the first six months of 1998, exports of clothing and textiles were 20 per cent. down on the comparative period of the previous year. At the same time, consumer confidence in the UK market has been dented. At a time when UK manufacturing industry is having to contend with increased costs, it has also had to contend with social legislation, including the working time regulations and the national minimum wage. The British Apparel and Textile Confederation has stated that
imported products become that much more attractive and may be the only way in which to provide the necessary margin for manufacturers and retailers alike".
That is a very worrying statement. The TGWU estimates that 500 jobs are being lost in the industry every week. If one looks at the pattern of job losses in the last six months of 1998 alone, one sees that there has been an acceleration.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that that is exactly the problem for some very respected companies, such as the one that she has mentioned and Laura Ashley in my constituency which, through no fault of its own, has found itself having to downsize simply to stay afloat?

Mrs. Browning: Indeed. That trend is gathering momentum, and that is why it is good to have an opportunity to debate the matter on the Floor of the House. I have a long list, covering two whole sides of A4, of the job losses in the past six months in the industry. These are spread throughout the country, but particularly affect the midlands, the north of England and Scotland.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Has my hon. Friend given any thought to the level of interest rates in the UK? I am sure that the Minister will remind the House that interest rates in the UK are at their lowest for a long time.

Is not the real problem that while in the rest of Europe interest rates are at 3 per cent., our interest rates are at more than 6 per cent.? In fact, we are increasingly seeing the level of the euro go down and the level of the pound go up. The Government must intervene, and not simply leave it to the Bank of England.

Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend points to an important aspect of why the industry is under pressure. However, there are other aspects where the Government could clearly intervene to assist the industry, and I hope to cover some of those in my speech.
The job losses that have been identified—of which the unions are well aware—must be put into context. We are talking about 500 job losses, on average, a week, in an industry that employs just over 350,000 people. It is interesting to focus also on the contribution that the industry makes to our national economy. The manufacture of textiles and apparel contributed £7 billion to the output of the UK economy in 1997. It is an important industry, but it is not just the individual companies that we need to look at. The Government must take a more active role in the industry, as it is has a national dimension that is very important to our economy.
I wish to quote from an article in The Observer last September, which looked at what was happening in some of the bigger companies:
The exodus from textile manufacturing in the UK has, of course, been going on for decades. And in recent years, all of the main quoted textile companies—Courtauld Textiles, Dewhirst, Coats Viyella, William Baird and Claremont among them—have closed down factories in Britain and opened new ones in Morocco, Indonesia, Sri Lanka and other countries with much lower labour costs.
Earlier in the year, Dawson, which makes Pringle sweaters, closed two factories with the loss of 720 jobs. Burberry and Aquascutum, which have lost sales in Asia, have brought in short-time working and redundancies. Coats Viyella, one of the country's biggest manufacturers, has seen its share price sink like a lead balloon, and faced a further humiliation last week as it was forced to abandon the planned demerger".
The rate at which textiles production is moving overseas varies from company to company, but there is a trend for the removal overseas of companies manufacturing in this country which is very concerning. The article continued:
Dewhirst, one of Marks and Spencer's oldest suppliers, has told analysts it will have 60 per cent. of production abroad by the end of the year, rising to 70 per cent. by the end of next year.
Hon. Members will no doubt have focused on the fact that Marks and Spencer has made some public statements about where it will source its apparel and clothing from, but it is important to understand that that that does not necessarily mean that the company is saying that it has decided to source from abroad, and not from the UK. Marks and Spencer, like many other retailers, is now faced with a situation where its sources of supply—people with whom it has had producer-supplier relationships for many years—have upped sticks and moved. Marks and Spencer and other companies must now choose—do they stick with those people they know, albeit that they are now producing abroad, or do they seek new suppliers within the UK?

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): What about Heathcoat?

Madam Speaker: Order. The Minister must not intervene from a sedentary position. It makes it very difficult for the Hansard reporters.

Mrs. Browning: I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to make a point at this stage.

Mr. Battle: I apologise, Madam Speaker. I simply said to the hon. Lady that her whole case was based on the grounds that there were no suppliers, but she spelt out that Heathcoat was doing very well. In her conversations with the industry, was she not advised that real damage was done to the supply chain if Members of Parliament talked down the industry and pretended that it had all gone?

Mrs. Browning: I am disappointed that the Minister should intervene in such a manner on my opening speech. Will he listen to me? I am not making party political points. I am speaking on behalf of a successful company that is concerned about its industry. It is no good the Minister's taking one company in isolation. I do not want the management and unions from Heathcoat to have to tell me that they will put the work force on short time working or close. If companies in my constituency see a trend developing in their industry, they will want to intervene, and they will seek my help. What is happening in the textile industry must be apparent to the Minister. We want companies such as Heathcoat to keep working seven days a week, and that is why I have initiated the debate.

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I have given way to the Minister already, and he will be able to respond later. Perhaps he should hear the rest of my speech before he intervenes.

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mrs. Browning: I am too generous to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Battle: I come from Leeds, so I know something about the textile industry, and I speak on it with some passion. During the period when the hon. Lady was a Minister, my constituency alone lost more jobs every week than the numbers she is referring to today.

Mrs. Browning: We are not talking about former Conservative Governments. The Government, and the Minister, have been in office for nearly two years. As he has chosen to conduct the debate on that level, I shall do what I did not intend to do, and read out the list of job losses for which the Government have been responsible. Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling me that it does not matter, and that he would rather talk about the situation that pertained two, four or 10 years ago? He should be addressing today, tomorrow and the next 10 years.
In June 1998, Pringle in the north-east lost 280 jobs. In June 1998, Pringle in Scotland lost 245. On 30 June in Scotland, Dawson lost 600. In July, William Baird, in the north-east, lost 25 jobs. On 1 July, Todd and Duncan in Scotland lost 50 jobs. On 30 July, Morley and Kemp in the east midlands lost 37. In August, in the north-east, Textillion lost 100 jobs. Also in August, SR Gent in south

Yorkshire lost 50 jobs. On 8 August, Dawson lost 720 more jobs in Scotland. On 22 August, Dewhirst in Scotland lost 120. On 21 September, William Baird in the north-east lost 450. The Minister may laugh if he wants.
Last October, Praxis Tailoring in the north-east lost 15 jobs. In October, JPS Ltd. lost 200 jobs in the north-east. I am half-way through my list, and I have reached only last October, when Kangol in the north-east also lost 200 jobs, Karrimore in the north-east lost 35 jobs and William Sugden had 35 job losses, also in the north-east. On 14 October, Rieter-Scragg had 97 job losses in the north-west. On 16 October, Textillion had a further 240 job losses in the north-east. Slimma lost 103 jobs in Scotland on 21 October. On 22 October, 10 jobs were lost at Woolmart in Yorkshire. On 23 October, the Jerome Group in Yorkshire had 50 job losses.
On 6 November, FII had 130 job losses in the west midlands. On 6 November, Desmond and Sons lost 225 jobs in Northern Ireland. On 10 November, Coats Optilon had 61 job losses in the north-east. On 11 November, Umbro lost 70 jobs in the north-west. Edward Hall Bleachworks on 13 November lost 70 in the east midlands. On 14 November, C and J Clark had 120 job losses in the west midlands. In the north-east, 260 jobs were lost on 19 November at William Baird. Dewhirst lost 600 jobs across the country on 27 November. On the same day, Laura Ashley announced 100 job losses in Wales.
On 2 December, Courtaulds announced 1,220 job losses across the country. On 18 December, Chamberlain Components had 24 job losses in the east midlands. On 22 December, Dawson lost 300 jobs in Scotland. On 22 December, Sherwood lost 300 jobs in the east midlands.
The trend has continued in 1999. We do not want to hear a Minister telling us that that has nothing to do with the Government. All those job losses occurred during the Government's stewardship. I am asking the Minister—politely—to hear what the industry is saying. What can he and the Government do to stop a clear trend that is alarming companies such as John Heathcoat in Tiverton? Those companies are worried not about this week, but about the next few years.
What does the industry want? Heathcoat wrote to me:
We need the Government to help promote the UK textile industry.
I welcome the Minister's initiative in setting up an industry-led group. However, the Government must do more than hold meetings and sit around tables talking. The Department of Trade and Industry has agreed to support only 19 overseas events to assist United Kingdom exports. That compares badly with the Department's support for 31 last year. At a time when exports are being hit by the strength of sterling and the problems of the far east, it seems ironic that the DTI should provide less support to help companies expand into export markets.

Mr. Phil Woolas: The point about overseas exports is important, but does the hon. Lady agree that the number of companies attending those exhibitions and trade fairs is more important than


the number of events that occur? I welcome her call for more DTI support for our industry, but we should be clear about that point.

Mrs. Browning: I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but concern has been expressed by the industry's trade body, the British Apparel and Textile Confederation. If the Government are doing better than the confederation believes, it is surely incumbent on the Government to communicate better and to ensure that the trade body knows what they are doing. The confederation is expressing public concern about the support coming from the Government this year, in comparison with that given last year. If that concern is unfounded, there is clearly a lack of communication.
The industry wants a level playing field. We speak often of level playing fields, but they are vital. They make the difference between winning and not winning contracts. The industry want a level field at home and abroad.
Heathcoat of Tiverton is based in an area that would not be immediately identified as having a large textile manufacturing sector. There is an industry in the south-west, but the area is less well known for it than the north, the midlands and Scotland. If the Government intervene domestically to support the industry, through grants or in any other way, it is essential that they should do so in a way that is fair to companies such as mine in the south-west. It would be quite wrong to address the crisis by putting support into companies or regions that would disadvantage other companies in the textile industry in another part of the country.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Other Governments of divers compositions have helped particular companies to the detriment of other companies in the same industry. The Minister must listen to the hon. Lady's warning.

Mrs. Browning: That is quite right. If the Government are to intervene through regional or sectoral aid, it is vital that they do not set one domestic company against another simply because of geographical position.
The Government can assist companies such as John Heathcoat in another way. I mentioned a level playing field and we all know of the difficulties that companies in all industries encounter when tendering for contracts. As someone who worked in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for three years, I am well aware that within the European Union there is always concern about how hidden subsidies are used to give an unfair advantage when companies from different states are tendering for the same contract.
At my meeting with John Heathcoat, I was concerned to hear about one problem that the company brought to my attention, which involved a contract with the Ministry of Defence for supplying the RAF coverall. I have written to the Minister's colleague, the Minister for Defence Procurement, about that issue and I will outline the company's experience—it is well established in the niche market of supplying that product—and the difficulties that it encountered when tendering for that contract. I shall read a letter from the company, as it includes various

registered trademark names, which I hope that hon. Members will follow if I put them into context. The company writes:
We have been supplying approximately 10,000 metres/year of this fabric"—
it is supplying Ballyclare Special Products, which produces the RAF coverall—
woven from Nomex (DuPont) Aramid fibre.
In September we responded to a new tender from Ballyclare for 30,000 metres/year over the next three years.
Last month"—
that is, in December, just before Christmas—
Ballyclare were informed by the MOD that they had not been successful. The contract had been awarded to a German company called Freutcher, who will apparently commission garments to be made, part in Sarajevo and part in Tunisia. The garment tender price was claimed to be 5 per cent. lower than Ballyclare's quotation.
However, Freutcher's tender is based on Conex (Teijin fibre) which is priced lower than Nomex, and is a fibre which we are informed that the MOD has not yet fully evaluated.
Ballyclare contacted the MOD before submitting their tender to enquire whether they should offer an alternative to Nomex. The response was negative, they should only submit based on Nomex.
Ballyclare is extremely annoyed with that scenario simply because it has discovered that the German company's tender was based on an alternative fabric. The letter says that the company is
very aggrieved … as with Conex being cheaper yarn it is likely that we could at least have matched the competitive tender. We have now lost valuable business at a difficult time for the textile manufacturing industry, putting jobs at risk in our weaving unit.
As I wrote only 10 days ago I do not expect a reply yet, but I draw that matter to the Minister's attention because there is room for Government intervention if one set of rules are applied to one company and another set to others—in that case a company supplying the main supplier—and if that results in United Kingdom jobs being put at risk because the contract goes to a German company. I do not expect the Minister to give me an answer today, unless he has one, but I hope that he will encourage his right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence Procurement to look into the matter and take a personal interest in how such important contracts are lost, as that clearly proves that we do not have a level playing field. That is a genuine case for Government intervention.
The Government could also be making representations on behalf of the industry in another area, which has been flagged up in the newspapers in the past few days. Owing to the banana war, which hon. Members will have read about, the situation with the United States is now serious. I will not go into too much detail, but as a former Agriculture Minister I am only too familiar with the banana trading arrangements of the Caribbean countries and competing south American countries, which all want to export their bananas to the European Union. There is a banana war between the EU and the United States over World Trade Organisation regulations, and the US is threatening 100 per cent. tariffs on EU exports as a reprisal because it cannot get its own way. The tariffs will target cashmere knitwear and printed cotton.
A statement from the industry reads:
For the cashmere industry, this threat is not far short of a disaster, as the early part of the year is when US buyers place their orders for delivery from June onwards. Cashmere spinners in


Yorkshire and cashmere spinners and weavers in the Borders of Scotland are already having orders cancelled and job losses are imminent".
That is the result of the stalemate, and those of us who take an interest in the matter have been following the WTO talks daily. Perhaps the Minister can give us an update. As I understand it, yesterday's talks were deferred, yet again. The Government have a role here. They can intervene at the highest level. I would like to think that the Prime Minister will speak to President Clinton about the matter.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: The hon. Lady will understand that people in the borders are as concerned as she is. It is to be hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) will catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and will be able to develop the arguments from the point of view of south-east Scotland. People in the borders rightly believe that the United Kingdom Government have given the United States international support, which was justified at the time, but their reward for such support is a tariff that is damaging our industry today, here and now. Factories in Hawick are closing because the delivery dates for their garments will be caught by the 100 per cent. tariff. It will bankrupt those businesses if they knit the garments and then have to pay the penalty.

Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman speaks as a representative of people working in that industry and knows far better than I do the impact on his constituents. I endorse his comments. He is right. The Government can legitimately intervene in such issues and I should like to think that the Minister will assure the House from the Dispatch Box that pressure will be brought to bear on the United States at the highest level—at prime ministerial level. If we in this House believe in anything, it is in free trade—well, we Conservatives certainly do. We do not like tariffs and barriers. If Labour's new-found devotion to free market philosophy is genuine, the Prime Minister will not hesitate to pick up that phone, speak to the President and ensure that the barriers are brought down—and not merely in a few months' time when it suits everyone to sit around a table for yet more talks, because we need action in a hurry.
John Heathcoat in my constituency is not a sunset company. I hope that I have clearly demonstrated that it has not rested on its laurels. However, the company is worried and I hope that the Minister will understand that it is not asking me to make representations to the Government with a begging bowl in my hand asking for largesse. I have highlighted several issues in which the Government can rightly intervene and assist the industry.
The managing director of Heathcoat wrote to me saying:
We are prepared to make our own way in the market; that is our job and we have the managerial skills and trained workforce to do that, so we do not want to appear to the Government to be coming begging for handouts, that is most definitely not our style.
We do not however want to find ourselves disadvantaged in our efforts by assistance or other grants being made to our competitors in Europe or the UK.
We have a good record of investment and training, and have always been prepared to stand on our own expertise and entrepreneurial skills, and have an excellent record on both Environment and Energy savings. What we are looking for is a policy to 'talk up' the textile industry at Governmental level to

dispel the view that exists in the country (and regrettably in some areas within the industry) that all is lost, that textiles is a sunset industry and all we can do is wait while it dies a lingering death.
This cannot be the case, the country cannot afford to lose the jobs that the Textile industry provides, and we feel that we should get at the very least moral support from the Government for those companies that have not joined the race to low cost countries and have decided to keep their manufacturing facilities, and the jobs that go with it, within the UK.
We do run a research unit which is continually looking at new uses for textiles and at new processing methods, but we find that the amount of paperwork involved in obtaining a grant and the work necessary in preparing it is burdensome to say the least. We should not have to employ consultants to show us how to best prepare cases for Brussels, we should get Government encouragement and help to do this ourselves.
I have already given the House an example of the difficulties that the company encountered in tendering for one EU contract. Although I am discouraged by the Minister's intervention and his brickbat approach, I hope that he will give us a substantive reply to the debate that will address the practical aspects of legitimate Government intervention so that John Heathcoat can continue for hundreds of years as one of the leading textile companies in Britain within a vibrant sector that can hold its head up high.

Mr. Phil Woolas: I start by offering the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) the traditional congratulations on obtaining this morning's debate; I do so genuinely. Many hon. Members on both sides of the House have been campaigning for the textile industry, some for 20 or 30 years. I welcome the hon. Lady's initiative and agree with much of what she has said.
The company in her constituency has clearly taken initiatives and found a niche market, but nevertheless finds the industry fiercely competitive. I would correct the hon. Lady on one point, and I hope that she will recognise my good intentions in doing so. She spoke about the scale of the industry and its importance to our economy, and mentioned a figure of £7 billion in output. That figure represents the total exports of the clothing and textile industry. Its total output is some £27 billion.
The textile industry employs between 350,000 and 370,000 people. It is bigger than the car industry, the chemical industry and the agriculture industry. Although I am not calling for direct subsidy for the textile industry, on many occasions I strain at the leash to do so because of factors with which hon. Members are familiar. It is a hugely important industry, as the Government have recognised in their action plan—an initiative that has been welcomed by the House.
I chair the all-party parliamentary clothing and textiles group and I know that there are disagreements regarding the cause of the problems. Interest rates and the high value of sterling have been mentioned. Ministers, industrialists and the unions recognise that there is a six-month delay in the effect on orders, and subsequently jobs, as a result of problems in the industry, which were prevalent in the latter part of 1998. However, those problems cannot be attributed entirely to interest rates and the high value of sterling. The trend has continued for 100 years. The clothing and textile industry—particularly the production of finished garments—is labour intensive and that makes it susceptible to overseas competition on labour costs.
We are a genuinely all-party group. If any hon. Member present is interested in joining, let me say that there is no subscription and we are very friendly bunch. We have a regional make-up, and the south-west is extremely important. We agree that the UK textiles industry cannot compete on labour costs. The minimum wage has not yet been introduced, so it has had no effect, despite what some people in the industry say. However, even at the low level of £3.60 per hour, it is irrelevant in terms of overseas competition as, in Morocco, for example, that sum is equivalent to the weekly wage.

Mrs. Browning: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to put it on the record that although the industry is concerned about the minimum wage, John Heathcoat does not pay below the minimum wage, so it is not an issue for that company.

Mr. Woolas: I recognise that our best companies pay above the minimum wage. That argument supports the action plan as it shows that companies such as Heathcoat are successful not on the basis of suppressing labour costs but as a result of high investment and high skill input.
We cannot attribute all the problems in the industry to interest rates and the high value of sterling, although both factors are now moving in the right direction. However, there are long-term trends and we need to address them. The action plan for the clothing, textile and footwear industry and the carpet manufacturers and unions has been greatly encouraged by the Government, and attempts to provide an analysis and find a way forward.
Let me say a few words about Marks and Spencer, as a great deal of nonsense has been written and spoken about that company. There is no doubt that the predominant position of Marks and Spencer causes problems for suppliers in the clothing industry. It is an extremely powerful operator within the market. In some cases that can be good, as Marks and Spencer has saved many jobs by continuing to source from the United Kingdom. However, other factories have closed, some would say at the whim of a Marks and Spencer buyer making a telephone call and moving an order overseas.
Marks and Spencer has recognised that its change not only in senior management but in emphasis from buyers to marketing is extremely important. The action plan encourages partnership between retailers and manufacturing sectors. To be fair, Marks and Spencer has made that point to its furnishing and clothing suppliers. British manufacturers and retailers should work together to use their unique advantage over overseas suppliers—the ability to respond quickly.
As chair of the all-party group, I am conscious of always wearing clothing that has been made in Britain. As I have said before, Mr. Deputy Speaker, everything you can see and everything that you cannot see that I am wearing is made in Britain. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Prove it."] I shall not respond to that invitation, as I am sure it would not be allowed.
My tie is of modern stain-resistant fabric made and developed in the United Kingdom. It is a good example of a niche market, of high research input and a quick response by a United Kingdom supplier. The relationship

between manufacturers, suppliers and retailers, which is part of what the action plan addresses, is an extremely important development.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Is it not a fact that Marks and Spencer often requires small suppliers to supply only Marks and Spencer, and that that brings problems?

Mr. Woolas: I agree. The buying policy of Marks and Spencer might be understandable from the company's narrow point of view, but it is very damaging to the industry because it inverts the market. Suppliers find that they have to put all their eggs in one basket and that is dangerous for any business. I therefore recognise the importance of the hon. Gentleman's point.
The action plan offers us a consensus on the way forward to ensure that Government support for the industry is effective and fast, and the regional strategies that have been developed are part and parcel of that process. However, in our debate today, there have been no calls for direct subsidy; indeed, I note that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton fell short of calling for direct subsidy, although she dropped some strong hints about protectionism, which surprised me given her party's views on that matter. I genuinely believe that the action plan is in the best interests of the industry, but we must recognise that competition on labour costs will never be a way forward and I am pleased about the hon. Lady's remarks about salary levels in the company that she used as the basis for the debate.
I should like to emphasise the points that have been made about the dollar banana affair and the trade war over cashmere. The UK clothing and textiles industry is, in many ways, an amalgamation of small specialist industries. We find a rich history and heritage and a very high skill base in all parts of the United Kingdom and in all parts of the industry—whether lace in Nottingham or cashmere on the borders and so on. I know that my hon. Friend the Minister has visited the industries in many of those places and is familiar with them. It is not his fault that he is from Yorkshire, although I must choose my words carefully because Saddleworth is in real Yorkshire—it is still in Yorkshire, as far as we in Saddleworth are concerned—but Oldham is not. The two areas—Oldham's cotton industry and the wool industry in Saddleworth—offer a good example of my point.
The cashmere industry is one of our finest export industries. It is impossible to overstate its importance to areas in the east midlands, Yorkshire and the Scottish borders where the industry has been built up over hundreds of years. The danger for the cashmere knitted industry lies in the fact that it is seasonal. During the next two or three weeks, trade fairs will take place—I think that the first is next week—at which clothing goods will be sold for sale in United States stores during the coming year. If we lose that business at those trade fairs over the next month, the danger is not merely that we shall lose the business this year, but that it will inevitably go to China, because there is nowhere else in the world that does such work. If the business goes to China this year because of cost, and despite the efforts of US retailers who have protested against their Government's action, it is difficult to envisage how we can win it back.
The UK-made brand of cashmere knitted goods is very powerful and US consumers want to buy it. The trade war is a matter for the European Union, the United States and


the WTO, but I realise that my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are aware of the situation. I urge Ministers to do all they can, urgently, because if we cannot change the decision, there will be factory closures during the next few weeks.
Although the future of the industry is not guaranteed even if the action plan is implemented, its implementation remains a necessary criterion for that future. Looming on the horizon are two important matters. The first is the renegotiation of the multi-fibre arrangement, which is of huge importance. I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to give us details of the UK's approach, but I want to flag up the matter to underline its importance. The second is the European regional development fund money. At present, we have Retex money and objective 2 funding, and there is a correlation between objective 2 status and many aspects of the UK clothing and textile industry. We need to ensure that, in deliberations about European regional development fund money, the clothing and textile industry is given due consideration. I welcome this morning's debate. Although I disagree with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, I hope that all hon. Members in the Chamber are united on the importance of promoting the industry.

Mr. Michael Moore: Like the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas), I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing the debate and bringing this important matter before the House. I am especially grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate, not least because of the significance of textiles to my area in the Scottish borders. In that area, as in many other parts of the country, there has been a gradual decline over several years in the number of jobs in the textiles sector. In the late 1960s, in an area with a population of 100,000, about 14,000 jobs depended on the industry; two years ago, the number of jobs was down to about 5,000. However, the textile industry still represents 50 per cent. of manufacturing jobs in the Scottish borders and in certain towns—not least, where I live in Innerleithen—96 per cent. of jobs are dependent on textiles. In the much larger town of Hawick, the figure is 88 per cent., which is still a large percentage.
Over the past couple of years, we in the borders have not needed to seek out troubles. There has been a range of job losses, in farming and electronics but, especially in textiles. Companies such as Claridge Mills, Ettrick and Yarrow Spinners, Laidlaw and Fairgrieve, Gardiners and, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), Pringle have all suffered significant job losses and some of the smaller companies are now closed. That is a roll call of some of the finest names in textiles in Scotland, perhaps even in the United Kingdom, and people are concerned about what the future holds for the industry, especially during the next few weeks and months.
The downward trend in textiles is understood. We have had a useful debate about the pressures on the industry, some of which, as was pointed out, have existed for more than 100 years. In each part of the country, there are successful businesses that are doing extremely well because they have turned themselves into world leaders, by adopting good business techniques and focusing on

world-class products in niche markets. In my constituency, that process is assisted by the Scottish college of textiles, which has done much work on advanced and applied textile science and technology. The college has now successfully merged with Heriot-Watt university and we hope that its expertise and capability will be enhanced.
Although there have been job losses during the past 20 or 30 years, there have also been successes. Companies such as Lochcarron, currently based in Galashiels, have built themselves up and are now significant employers. During that period, the strength, resilience and development of the cashmere business in our area have been very noticeable. Although problems have been exacerbated by the recent levels of the pound and interest rates—perhaps, in due course, there will even be an effect caused by our non-participation in the euro—people understand that those are large issues on which there is legitimate debate. However, in the borders, people are perplexed about why a trade war between the United States and the European Union should have such a potentially devastating impact on our area—indeed, no one can understand it.
The banana war, as it is called, has nothing to do with the borders. It may relate to important principles of trade between the EU and the United States, but British and Scottish borders traders have been very fair competitors over the years. Whereas so much devastation has happened in our area as a result of outside factors involving decisions by companies in the middle of America or elsewhere to close huge factories, the current problem has nothing to do with economic trends. It seems to us that it is the result of pure spite and retaliation, which should have nothing to do with our area.
I should like to highlight the dependency of the borders on the cashmere sector. It is a highly successful sector. It has allowed itself to develop into premium-pricing areas. Cashmere from the borders features in all the top areas. In Tokyo, on Madison avenue, in London and Paris—you name it—Scottish borders cashmere will be in evidence. The cashmere sector employs 2,500 people, which is almost half the remaining jobs in textiles. It is estimated that there are £20 million-worth of exports a year to the United States alone. Fifty per cent. of EU cashmere exports to the United States come from the United Kingdom. It is estimated locally that as much as 90 per cent. of United Kingdom cashmere production comes from the borders.
As the hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) has said, the catastrophe looming in the industry arises because now is the buying season. Now the important decisions are being taken by American buyers about what they will stock in their shops in the next few months. While we hear much about how quickly trade wars can be stopped, the United States buyers are looking now at what prices they will be paying this spring or autumn. As they see the doubling of prices that they may be expected to pay, they look to local producers to share that pain. Some businesses that are very dependent on the United States for their business are contemplating either losing the business because they are no longer competitive or taking on absolutely massive risks by insulating the prices for their buyers.
The borders is only a small area of 100,000 people. Compared to some of the major conurbations in England and Scotland, it may not seem significant, but we have


seen in so many sectors in the last while the devastation of small communities across the Scottish borders. People cannot comprehend why this particular trade development should put so many more jobs at risk. I am the first to acknowledge that some extremely complex negotiations are going on. I have been pleased at the way in which the Department of Trade and Industry and other Departments have been keen to brief me and my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) on developments.
When I was across in Washington recently with the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs looking at inward investment, the British ambassador arranged for a meeting between me and members of the United States state department. We have had access to people to make our points in various parts of America, Britain and Brussels. I am under no illusions about the complexity of the arguments. However, we find that the confidence is going out of the industry by the day, and people are worrying about what the future holds.
We are not clear about what happened this week at the WTO. To all outside the arcane negotiations, it appears to have been a complete shambles. That is something that we in our part of the world cannot afford to sustain for much longer. I hope that the Minister will be able to update the House on the industry dispute and reinforce the efforts that he, his Department and other Ministers at whatever senior level are doing to ensure that this trade war, which has absolutely nothing to do with the Scottish borders, is ended before it ends jobs in the Scottish borders.

Mr. Terry Rooney: I recognise the pressure on time so I will try to be brief. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) on securing this debate. It gives us an opportunity to talk about an important industry. I am from Bradford, which used to be the wool capital of the world. I am not sure what description is applied to it now. It has been devastated by what has happened to wool textiles in the past 20 years. My mother, father and two brothers have spent their working lives in textiles. Between them, they have 91 years' service, but unfortunately they also have 23 redundancies. Every reason for problems in the textiles industry has caused a redundancy in my family. I speak passionately, from personal experience of the problems.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) said that there had been 100 years of decline in the textiles industry. Unlike him, I cannot go back that far, but I can look back at significant factors that have affected the wool textiles industry in the past three decades. I am afraid that the management of the industry have a lot to answer for over many years. They failed to be bright and proactive.
In the 1960s, managers decided that the industry could survive if it reduced its labour costs by importing labour from the Indian subcontinent. That would be the solution. There was no investment in plant, machinery, new products or new buildings. They simply reduced costs by bringing in labour from overseas. That obviously failed.
In the 1970s, the answer was seen to be mergers. They did not often involve redundancies, but dozens of smaller companies merged without cohesion, co-ordination or

management plans for the future. Companies were merged simply to create bigger groups. In the 1980s, for whatever reasons, the industry suffered the most severe recession that it had ever seen and in West Yorkshire we lost 50,000 jobs. The list that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton read out was impressive, but the county of West Yorkshire lost 50,000 jobs in that recession. That produced at last a hard-headed look by the industry at itself, its future and where it could go. As other hon. Members have commented, that refocus resulted in the industry going for the high added value markets, especially Japan and the United States. That brought other problems, to which I shall return.
After the recession there was serious investment in the industry. Sadly, in recent years that investment has fallen off, but in the late 1980s and early 1990s we began to see a plan of action. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton mentioned the Transport and General Workers Union. It is what I have always called the National Union of Dyers, Bleachers and Textile Workers, which was subverted by dubious means into the monolith known as the TGWU. The textile workers section headquarters is in Bradford and always will be. It is about 100 yards from my constituency office and the general secretary is the greatest guy in Britain.
Three issues have had a long-term impact on the industry in the past 10 years. One is the multi-fibre arrangement and the previous Government's failure actively to enforce it and promote its future. The second is the Uruguay round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade. The textiles industry was sold out by the previous President of the Board of Trade, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), in order to reach an agreement for agriculture. The consequence of that was an agreement by the free traders of the previous Government that exports from Britain to the United States would have a 37 per cent. tariff imposed on them. So much for the free traders in Washington. The tariff would be reduced by 1 per cent. a year for 10 years. So the next time GATT is up for review, we shall start from a 27 per cent. tariff on exports to the United States.
The third issue was assisted area status. My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth mentioned objective 2, but assisted area status has always had a bigger impact. In 1993, my city of Bradford had that status removed in order that Hastings, Yarmouth and places like that could get it. That had a massive impact on the possibility of helping textiles companies in temporary difficulties by giving them regional selective assistance. Many companies went to the wall that could have survived if they had received assistance for a temporary period. We want to live not in the past but in the future, but we need to know and understand how we got to the present position, so that the same mistakes are not made again.
I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry—who, as I said last month, was born in the same hospital as me—that we still face the problem that the Governments of Germany, Belgium and Italy are giving significant, illegal support to their textile industries. Either we take that illegal step, or we stop them taking it. I do not care which, but if our industry is to compete, it must do so on the same basis as theirs. In Germany, support is given through the lander, the local government, and is semi-hidden, but everybody knows it is going on. It is not fair; it is not right and it must stop.


I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth said about the action plan for the industry. I hope that all sides in the industry seek to make that work. We need a much more focused effort on design, sales and marketing because our products are good, but other aspects have not always been as good. We need to sort out the supply chain and get all the links talking to each other so that they understand each other's needs and problems.
Our textile industry is a fine industry with superb products. We need to promote and sustain this £27 billion industry and its 350,000 jobs. We need not only to look to the future but to learn from the past.

Mr. David Tredinnick: Twelve years ago, I made my maiden speech on the hosiery, knitwear and textile industries. I went to consult the leaders of those industries in my constituency and asked them, "What are the key points that I should make in the Chamber?" They said, "You must refer to the import of cheap Chinese underwear." I need hardly point out that that was a difficult speech to write.
I have lived and breathed the issue since then, and today I want to highlight the problems in Leicestershire, where the industry is very important and accounts for 9 per cent.—35,000—of all jobs in the county. The problems are exacerbated by the fact that three quarters of companies in the industry employ 25 or fewer people, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) pointed out.
The key point that I want to make to the Minister is that high interest rates have had a devastating impact on the local economy, which has contributed more than anything else to companies' difficulties. I know that interest rates have come down, it was too little, too late. It was too late for companies such as Ray Allen Ltd in my constituency. In my constituency, many of those companies have been downsizing.
The Minister said earlier that we were talking down the industry. That was an outrageous remark. I have come to the debate to articulate the industry's problems and tell the Government how serious those problems are. The Minister should remember that, when the previous Government left office, we had a stable economy with low interest rates.

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister will have an opportunity to speak in a moment. He knows that he took over when the economy was in a much better state than it is now and that interest rates have caused the key problems.
The hon. Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and others referred to low-cost competition. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Time is limited and the Minister will have an opportunity to respond in a minute. Sedentary remarks are not helping the debate.

Mr. Tredinnick: Low-cost competition from overseas is a devastating factor, as are problems with the

multi-fibre arrangement and possible trade sanctions caused by a dispute about bananas, which were referred to earlier. We had to worry about straight bananas and bent sausages in the previous Parliament, and they are back again.
The Minister must take on board the fact that manufacturers in my constituency blame the Government and hold them to account. We look forward to his response.

Mr. Tim Boswell: It is a customary courtesy to thank and congratulate the hon. Member who opens an Adjournment debate, but in this case, it goes beyond a mere formality. I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), as the whole House should be, for introducing the subject, and for the doughty way in which she stood up for her constituents' interests.
In no sense are my remarks intended to derogate the major contributions that have been made by hon. Members from all parties, who knew what they were talking about, including the hon. Members for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore), my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and the hon. Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney). They were an eloquent bunch and explained the industry's problems.
The opening contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton was helpful in that she set in context the particular problems of one major player and reminded us, as did other hon. Members, of the industry's complexity and wide geographical distribution. As one hon. Member pointed out, the industry directly employs more than 350,000 people, so it counts for us all.
We know that the industry is rich in tradition—it can well claim to have founded the industrial revolution—but it has modernised itself, particularly in the past few years, with a heavy investment programme and radical changes of attitude. It is extremely encouraging, for example, that 60 per cent. of wool production is exported. The problem is that having reformed itself, the industry is now frustrated.
We were disappointed by the Minister's earlier remarks. He can redeem himself in a moment. I make him an offer: we will not run down the industry—we do not seek in any way to do so—if he will not fall into the trap of complacency in dealing with the industry's problems. Megaphone diplomacy about the past, and even the present, is nowhere near as important as a constructive attitude to the future.
The present position is not a happy one, which is demonstrated by representations that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have received. The British Apparel and Textile Confederation says tactfully that the economic situation is very difficult and points out that exports in the first six months of last year were 20 per cent. down on the comparable period of the previous year. The Confederation of British Wool Textiles says that there are no signs of any improvement and 1999 will clearly be another traumatic year for the industry.
Surveys show that last year, when consumer demand was comparatively buoyant and rose by 3.3 per cent. in the first half of the year, employment dropped by 4.3 per cent. That is the absolute figure and does not take account of short-time working. There is a difficulty.
A possible trap for the industry is that it will pursue niche markets. Of course it is important that every industry should target an appropriate market, but I hope that the Minister and anyone listening to the debate will not feel that the answer to the industry's problems is to select a particular sector and disregard all the others. Two areas of clear excellence in this country are bespoke tailoring and designer clothes. From my days in education, I have links with Central St. Martin's college. It is great to go to its student shows, particularly when one remembers that previous students have been called Galliano and McQueen. However, that is only a small percentage of the industry. When selecting markets, Savile row and the catwalk are all very well, but underpants matter too.
That brings me naturally to Marks and Spencer, which is the major player in the industry, and other important and well-known brand names. Those companies face severe commercial difficulties at the moment, arising from flat domestic demand, which has led to overstocking. That leads to a sales and sell-off culture, which has repercussions as people hold back their purchases for the best opportunity and can yet further depress prices. I am sure that companies represented by interests in the UK and people who know the industry well will devise strategies for trading through that, but there is likely to be a further shift abroad of parts of the supply chain and a reduction in UK employment.
The Government cannot duck their responsibility for the problems arising from the exchange rate. The exchange rate is coming down at last, but it has added to problems which have been further compounded by the weakness of the south-east Asian economies in particular.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, North reminded us, we must remember the industry's potential. In the White Paper on competitiveness, the Government acknowledged that import pressures will increase further when the existing quotas are phased out in 2005. Several hon. Members mentioned the specific and immediate problems arising from the banana war and its impact on the cashmere industry. It is reasonable to ask the Minister and his colleagues at the highest level to be as robust as possible in standing up for British interests.
I must mention the internal solutions that the industry is seeking with the assistance of Government. The White Paper conceded that, despite all the efforts that have been made recently, productivity is still higher in Europe than in the United Kingdom, but the textile industry wants to do something about it. Like other hon. Members, I especially welcome the efforts made by the social partners on both sides of the industry to develop an action plan to make the industry more productive. That may include some requests for Government help and, in particular, export promotion. We can argue endlessly about who did what, but the point is that there is a strong interest in expanding the British footprint in that sphere.
We need to keep a careful eye on our European competitors in order to produce a level playing field. As the hon. Member for Bradford, North said, either we can do more or they can do less, but it needs to be on a fair basis.
A point that has not been flagged up as clearly as it should have been is the need for a constructive, industrywide approach to staff training, development and

retention. I know that the Minister met representatives of both sides of the industry on 24 November to talk about the action plan, and it will be helpful if I leave him time to tell us where we have got to with that.
The innovation and excellence of the industry, and its determination to modernise itself and to fit itself for international competitive trading conditions, could come to nothing if sensible general economic policies are not pursued. If the industry is suffering now, before the national minimum wage has come into effect or, indeed, before the working time directive has come fully into effect, the implication is that there will be further pressure on the industry later. The same is true in respect of further taxes which are building up on business generally.
What we ask of the Government is realistic intervention—yes, we will use that word—to help the industry to overcome its internal difficulties and to fit itself for the future. Above all, we ask for a sensible macro-economic policy which will steer this industry and others in the right direction. The Government have their responsibilities to the industry and more generally, but nothing can compensate for the failure of economic policy, a failure already apparent in the difficulties that the industry, despite all its efforts, is facing.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) most sincerely for raising this topic on the Floor of the House. My regret is that we cannot speak about textiles all morning. We should have debated the topic much more when I was in opposition. I regret that I shall be able to respond to only a few key points.
My own experience of the textile industry in my city of Leeds goes back some years. Between 1981 and 1996, when interest rates peaked at 15 per cent., 9,000 textile jobs were lost in my city alone. I speak with some passion and anger about the fact that Opposition Members have woken up late to the problem because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Rooney) explained, the devastation of the textile and clothing industry caused by Government policies over the past 20 years is incontrovertible.
I welcome all the speeches and interventions made today. Serious points have been made, and in the few minutes that I have I should at least touch on one or two of them, especially the threat to the cashmere and textile industry in the borders, Yorkshire and elsewhere. The industry is affected by the trade dispute between the United States of America and the European Union over bananas—arcane though that may seem to many of us. We are doing all that we can to resolve that dispute. I assure the House that intense negotiations have taken place.
I understand that the World Trade Organisation is meeting formally again tomorrow to pick up the threads of the conversation. In the meantime, the European Union, the US and the Director General of the WTO are in negotiation. I assure the House that the Government are raising these matters at the very highest ministerial and governmental levels, with letters and other exchanges being used to keep up the pressure. We will not resile from keeping up the challenge to ensure that our industry is not jeopardised.
Of course we are supporting exports by the textile and clothing sectors. As for trade fair arrangements, in the new 1998 round, 45 clothing bids—or 62 per cent—were successful, not 19. That is higher than the average for other industries, so the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton might concede that we are making a considerable effort. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) said, it is the number of firms that take part that is important, and more than 700 firms will benefit. If the sponsors' predictions are correct, more textile and clothing firms will be supported in 1999–2000 than were supported in 1988–89. We are keen to promote exports and are doing all we can—that is a fact, not a party political point.
Let me put the debate in context. Of course I am not complacent. I accept that the industry is under pressure—I see that in my own city—but I could have read a list of success stories to the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton. The picture is patchy, but in contrast to what happened over the previous 20 years, the bottom is not falling out of the industry. We are stabilising the industry. Our macro-economic strategy is reducing interest rates and getting sterling down to a competitive level. Our general economic policy is stabilising the conditions for the textile and clothing industry, and there are successes.
The company that the hon. Lady mentioned is a success story that should be celebrated, and I welcome her efforts in that regard. Other successes include Desmonds and Brinton's which has made carpet tiles for the new Hong Kong airport. There are also examples of innovation—for example, knitwear companies are using new computer technology. Some companies are using new technology to refresh and regenerate old manufacturing processes. That is precisely the way they must go if they are to be able to compete in intensely competitive global markets.
Textiles were mentioned in a positive light on the news at 6 pm the other day. Last September, a company called Autofil put money into the purchase of a £20 million factory near Nottingham. It makes yarn for car seats, and 70 per cent. of its sales are overseas. The directors said:
it was quite a gamble but despite the strong pound and talk of recession it seems to be paying off.
The BBC news bulletin stated that for a company like Autofil
official statistics are largely irrelevant…trading conditions are tough but well managed companies with good products can still prosper and that's a big difference between this economic down-turn and the last recession.
The Government are taking action, as shown by my Department's funding for 25 innovation projects in this sector, such as that at J. W. Whiteheads in Bradford, which is doing research into the development of new yarns and technologies. Reuben Gaunt in Yorkshire is improving the strength of yarns during weaving. Skills and training projects are backed by the centres of training and excellence, some of which were mentioned. Mention was also made of Kidderminster college, and work is being done at colleges in Leeds to ensure that the proper skills and training exist to take the industry into the next century.
On the supply chain, we are working with the apparel and textiles challenge to bring the retailers, buyers and designers together to integrate the various parts of the industry so that it works more efficiently.
That is some of the action that our Government are taking and will continue to take. We shall support regional selective assistance. In the past few years, £9.6 million has been allocated. Attempts have been made to call the industry together, not for a talking shop, but to draw up an action plan, which belongs to the industry and the trade unions working together to develop and deliver it—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Travel Links (North-West)

11 am

Mr. Jim Dobbin: May 1, through you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, thank the Speaker for the opportunity to have this debate. It is good to see other hon. Members from the north-west present in the Chamber. That illustrates the importance of transport issues in our developing economic environment.
The north-west region includes the conurbations of Greater Manchester and Merseyside, the shire counties of Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire, and the unitary authorities of Warrington, Halton, Blackpool and Blackburn, and the High Peak of Derbyshire. The region is mainly urban in character, but has substantial rural aspects. Any transport policy must therefore take account of urban and rural concerns.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on bringing together planning, land use, transport, the environment and regional development. That will provide the opportunity for co-operation in those facets, which has been missing for decades.
I shall make some general points, but I shall tend to concentrate on Greater Manchester. I hope that colleagues will have time to cover the other, no less important areas in the region.
The Government's White Paper, "A New Deal for Transport—Better for Everyone", is the first comprehensive review of national transport policy for well over 20 years, and represents a welcome and much-needed move away from the policies of deregulation and privatisation, which have, sadly, characterised transport policy for the past two decades.
The policies of the previous Government brought considerable hardship to the people of Greater Manchester, with disruption to local bus services accelerating a decline in patronage, and the local rail network being starved of much-needed investment.
The White Paper is a radical attempt to develop a transport strategy that is fully integrated, by which I mean not only integrated between different transport modes to ensure that they are safe, reliable, convenient and easily accessible, but integrated with other Government policies. Only now can transport policy be allowed to play its full and rightful part in the successful regeneration of Greater Manchester, thus contributing to economic growth, providing a sustainable environment and allowing the population to participate fully in the on-going success of the region. Improved traffic links will help to attract industry to the north-west, thereby increasing employment.
Integrated transport cannot be achieved overnight. The previous Government dismantled most of that during their period in office, rather than smoothing the path to full integration. A fine example of the damage caused by the previous Government's transport policies was the 1986 fiasco of bus deregulation. The Transport Act 1985 took away the passenger transport executive's bus operating arm and swept away a mass of regulation.
Bus deregulation, it was said, would increase bus patronage, improve efficiency, reduce fares and cut subsidies. However, the reality in Greater Manchester was very different. Patronage declined by 26 per cent. and fares increased in real terms by about one third. Part of

the problem was the chronic instability of the bus network in the free market environment. At one stage there were between 60 and 70 bus operators in the region, and the level of competition meant that there were hordes of buses aggressively vying for the available trade.
Levels of congestion and pollution in town centres and inner suburbs have increased. That has been particularly damaging to the health and quality of life of residents and visitors. The bus operators are not the ones who must bear the cost of the damage.
We hope that the White Paper will provide a framework that will enable the problems to be addressed. The launch in August last year of the Greater Manchester integration project, which is cited in the White Paper as model of best practice for others to follow, will set new standards for travel in the conurbation, and show how working in partnership can provide a public transport system with the qualities that people want.
Profitability in the bus industry depends critically on territorial control without too much competition. That is why, in the past few years, major private sector bus company conglomerates such as Stagecoach have developed. The logic is simple: there is no money in bus operations without a virtual monopoly. Such lack of competition is worrying and imposes increased costs on the passenger transport authority and executive. An economic regulator similar to the system that exists for rail is essential if bus transport is to play its proper role in an integrated transport system.
The dismantling of the UK rail system was another act of sheer vandalism. So far, we know that it has resulted in huge costs, phenomenal complexity, uncertainty and growing customer dissatisfaction. The establishment of the Strategic Rail Authority will provide a vision for the privatised railway, and through tough regulation—not deregulation—will make it more accountable to both passengers and freight customers.
On a more positive note, I shall highlight the considerable achievements of the region in transport terms. Greater Manchester has pioneered projects that are leading the way to the development of an integrated transport policy. As we all know, Greater Manchester is the home of Metrolink, the first modern street-running light rail system in Britain. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), who led Manchester city council at the time that it was introduced.
The first line, from Bury to Altrincham, was opened in 1992 at a cost of £145 million, jointly funded by the public and private sectors. The system—the track, equipment, trams and so on—is wholly owned by the passenger transport executive, but it is operated under a 15-year franchise agreement with the private sector.
Phase 1 runs on former British Rail lines to Bury in the north of the county through to Altrincham in the south. In Manchester, the line runs on-street through the heart of the city centre, for the first time providing rail access to the retail and commercial core, an essential function of any good transport system.
In 1997, 13.7 million journeys were made by Metrolink. The number is continually increasing and studies are being undertaken to examine options for further increasing the capacity of the fleet. If that figure is compared with the 7 million passengers carried on the British Rail lines that Metrolink replaced, the success of the system speaks for itself.
Metrolink appeals to car-owners as well. Studies show that it has replaced 2.6 million car trips on roads in Greater Manchester. The system has brought undoubted benefits to the local economy and has supported efforts to attract new business to the city centre and other town centres in Greater Manchester. It is crucial in the fight against traffic pollution and congestion.
The extension of the Metrolink system is the No. 1 priority. The county now has more developed plans for a full light rail network than any other conurbation and looks forward to its rapid development. Already the first extension to the scheme—the Salford Quays and Eccles extension—is under construction and should be completed by March 2000.
The next priority scheme, which affects my constituency, is the proposed extension to Oldham and Rochdale. I am pleased to see my hon. Friends the Members for Oldham, East and Saddleworth (Mr. Woolas) and for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons) in the Chamber. Conversion of the existing rail route to Metrolink operation will bring about a major transformation, vastly improving reliability and accessibility to the town centres. Predictions are that use of the existing rail line could be increased 10-fold.
Work is continuing on the development of other extensions for the future—for example, to east Manchester and Ashton-under-Lyme, which will provide a substantial boost to the economic and environmental regeneration of east Manchester and Tameside, and provide world-class public transport links for the Commonwealth games. In south Manchester, the Manchester airport link will enhance economic development potential and improve access opportunities to the airport and surrounding area. I shall return to the subject of the airport.
I should also like to take this opportunity to mention the East Lancs rail line in my constituency, which is voluntarily run and managed. It has made a magnificent contribution to tourism in Bury and Rossendale. There is soon to be a Heywood link, which local business is interested in using for freight. The rail line would provide a regular link with the channel tunnel.
The development of a comprehensive bus corridor strategy has been designed to improve the attractiveness and quality of bus travel across the conurbation. Bus priority is essential to improve the reliability of bus services. Until they can be insulated from the effects of traffic congestion, they will never be reliable or attractive enough to entice people out of cars.
I should like to mention another initiative in my constituency. The Middleton traffic initiative is a voluntary transport study group which has produced plans, of which I know the Minister has had sight, to take heavy goods vehicles of more than 17 tonnes out of the town centre. It is important that further transport links do not cause unnecessary harassment or pollution. Traffic congestion caused by HGVs trundling through residential areas is a focus of political and community concern, and must be tackled. That is why the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, headed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, is crucial.
As part of plans to upgrade the north-west's rail network, a Greater Manchester rail development and investment strategy is to be developed to improve the quality of services and ensure that the passenger transport authority is best placed to exploit the potential of rail in the context of the county's transport strategy.
We cannot debate transport without mentioning the North West Trains company's recent poor performance, which has prompted it to implement a programme of remedial action—known as the recovery plan—which will set a series of targets for rolling stock, driver availability and ticket office opening hours. I hope that it works. The message to Railtrack from this debate and from the House must be that we demand proper investment in the north-west line because it is important to improving the service in the area. The economy would benefit from early investment in north-west links with Eurorail and the channel tunnel. I noticed that a paper on the subject had been put in the Vote Office this morning, although I did not have the opportunity to read it before the debate. Such a link is essential.
Clearly, the task of developing Greater Manchester's public transport network is challenging and will involve securing essential integration of the range of services that passengers and the public generally want to be provided. In taking into account progress to date, including the development of initiatives, such as the integration project and the innovative quality partnership agreement, and proposals to extend Metrolink, which are important to Greater Manchester, I have every confidence that Greater Manchester is well placed to address the Government's objectives of a truly integrated transport network.
Manchester's municipal airport, which I believe is now the second busiest in the United Kingdom, was recently given leave to borrow in order to invest in further and improved transport links in and around the airport. It will be a major player in developing the economic heartland of the north-west and other regions. Such development would be supported by upgrading the west coast main line, rolling stock and subregional links. Further links to the east coast, better trans-Pennine links and links to Scotland and Wales are also desirable. Government support for those necessary transport links would benefit Manchester, Liverpool, Chester and Carlisle, as well as cities in the east, such as Sheffield, Leeds and Hull. Many surrounding towns and large rural areas could also benefit.
This is an important debate for the north-west. The region's economic prosperity depends on its complex transport links. There is no substitute for a properly planned, integrated transport strategy serving commuters, attracting tourists to the north-west's beauty spots—and taking them home again—and, of course, attracting and offering development opportunities to industry. We must plan to take advantage of the opportunities offered by the global economy, and at the same time, protect the environment and our communities. That is what we seek; that is what we hope the Government will support. I shall now end my remarks because I am aware that colleagues have important contributions to make to this debate.

Mr. Stephen Day: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on bringing this debate before the House. It is important that all colleagues from the area are able to express views. I am grateful to him. I shall make two points, but will be as brief as I can because I recognise that others are waiting to speak.
As joint chairman, along with the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), of the all-party group concerned with the west coast main line ever since the group was


formed, the matter has been dear to my heart for many years, as it has to the many other hon. Members whose constituencies are along the route. I am pleased to say that, after many years of slow progress, we are beginning, dare I say it, to see some light at the end of the tunnel.

Mr. Michael Jack: Which one?

Mr. Day: Indeed.
The west coast main line is very important, not only to Greater Manchester, but to constituencies beyond, such as Carlisle. The main body of manufacturing industry in the north-west of England is still largely based in Greater Manchester. I wish those involved in upgrading the line and providing the long overdue and much needed new rolling stock much success. It is a long awaited improvement.
Secondly, I should like to address a matter that is also dear to the hearts of my constituents, except much closer to home, and pertinent to the Government's integrated transport policy. I remember Jim Hacker in "Yes Minister" being desperate to avoid such a policy. It was passed around Westminster because nobody wanted to deal with it. I am still at a loss to understand what an integrated transport policy is. The only result that my constituents have thus far witnessed from this so-called policy, to their great disadvantage, is the cancellation of a bypass—a third of which has been built, but goes nowhere—for which they have waited 30 years.
I accept that the Government are involved in a study of the transport needs of the so-called south-eastern quadrant of Greater Manchester, in which the constituency of Cheadle falls. I wish the Minister luck in the exercise, although to me, it is rather pointless, as I am sure my constituents think, too. Officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions know full well of the need to complete the Manchester airport eastern link road. Its title says it all. The central section has been built, but it does not join the airport. How ridiculous!
The central section of the much-needed bypass was built because two shopping cities—one at Handforth Dean and the other at Cheadle Royal—invested money in it. That was fine, although the expectation was that the whole road would be completed. At the public inquiry into the MAELR, and the north-south A34(M), which has already been built, it was projected that, by 2000, the new shopping cities would result in my constituents suffering an extra 20,000 car movements a day. That figure has already been surpassed.
I say to the Minister that my constituents in Bramall, Woodford and Heald Green are suffering massive traffic flows to and from the airport. They feel that, under any integrated transport policy—whatever that may be and, once it is defined, whatever success it may have—they face nothing but increased traffic in the short term. It is absolutely essential at some point—even during the review—for the Minister to come to see for herself.
The people who live in certain roads in Woodford and in Heald Green cannot get their cars out of their driveways. Those roads were never intended to carry the volume of traffic that they are currently suffering. The whole roads system links up with the A6(M) Hazel Grove bypass—the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)

will no doubt want to speak on that matter—and with the Poynton bypass, which is part of the eastern section of the Manchester airport eastern link road, for which we have been waiting 30 years and which is also missing.
It was planned that all that would, eventually, link up to the M60 circular route around Manchester, but, south of the M63, there is no direct east-west or south to north-west link to Manchester airport. I thank the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton for raising this matter.

Mr. Jack: Does my hon. Friend think that, because the Government claim to believe in joined-up government, there will be a commitment to the policy that he seeks for his local roads system?

Mr. Day: I hope that my right hon. Friend is right. I am not trying to make any clever points; I am simply appealing on behalf of my constituents, who desperately need the Minister to listen to what is being said. This whole project, if completed—the A6(M), the Poynton bypass and the MAELR linking up to the M60—would provide the strategic road links that the Greater Manchester area desperately needs, for all sorts of reasons.
I make a final plea. If we are to have an integrated transport policy, please will the Government make it clear that—although they want improvements in rail and want to move as much traffic from road to rail as they can, and although everyone sees sense in that—they do not, as a matter of principle, exclude road building from that policy. They should not exclude schemes that have already started, because that would leave nothing but a future of misery for people in the areas that are affected. I hope that the Government will allow my constituents to escape from that misery.

Mr. Eric Martlew: First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin), not only on securing the debate but on his excellent speech. It covered not only his constituency, but the rest of the north-west.
I shall concentrate on the issues appertaining to Cumbria. We have the most excellent motorway anywhere in the country, and anyone who came over the Lancashire border—Lancashire is a fine county, I am sure of that—would be impressed, as they went through the Howgills and over Shap, by the Pennine hills on one side and the Lake district on the other. They would come to the historic city of Carlisle, which would be on the left as they went towards Scotland.
Although the M6 is excellent, it stops at Carlisle and becomes the A74. For nine miles, it is a dual carriageway all-purpose road. The Scottish Office is building a motorway to the border, but the road called the Cumberland gap is dangerous. People think that they are on the motorway but, all of a sudden, they see farm vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists on the road. That leads to accidents.
The previous Government took the road out of the road proposals, and even scrapped it at one point. I talked to a senior civil servant at the then Department of Transport, who said, "Of course, Mr. Martlew, this road goes nowhere." What he meant was that it went to Scotland,


so it was not the Department's responsibility. Not filling the Cumberland gap would be nonsense, because it is a dangerous road, and completing it would mean that we would have a motorway link from Brighton on the south coast to Stirling. We must finish that nine-mile stretch to give us a first-class road on the west side of the country.
I understand that the Government have agreed that we should continue to consider upgrading the road to motorway standard, for at least the next three months. I am pleased about that. I accept that the Government have to make some savings on road building—everyone accepts that we cannot build roads in the way that we have previously—but we must continue with this road.
Cumbria county council, of which I was a member, is concerned about the detrunking of the A590, the A595 and the A7. I understand the logic behind the Government's thinking on detrunking, which is to give local authorities more influence and more power. There is concern over whether the money will come to the local authority with detrunking, but I am sure that it can. The county council's real concern is the reduction in a road's status following detrunking. These areas are trying to attract inward investment, and they are afraid that that will send the wrong message to organisations. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister can reassure us on that issue.
The A66 is not in my constituency, but in that of the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean). There is no doubt, however, that the village of Temple Sowerby needs a bypass. Every year there is carnage on that stretch of the road. The previous Government failed to provide a bypass for that stretch of the A66; I hope that this Government will be able to do so.
In my constituency of Carlisle we are not very keen on building new roads. Hon. Members should consider our record over the past 50 years: we built half a ring road, but we realised that building the road was the wrong decision so we cancelled the rest of it. However, we need a north-west bypass. I understand that it may be built under a private finance initiative scheme. The vast majority of my constituents will welcome that, although certain individuals are concerned that the road may go through the corner of a nature reserve. My opinion is that the environmental problems created by not completing the bypass would be much greater than those that we will have if building goes on to the fringe of the nature reserve.
The hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day)—who sits across the way and is co-chairman of the west coast main line all-party group—has mentioned some of the points relating to the west coast main line that we have debated. We do not get a good service on Virgin Trains, but I have travelled with it seven times this year and—touch wood—have never been late. It may be that the service is getting better, but it may be that I have been lucky. We have concerns—[Interruption.] From the noise made by hon. Members, I suspect that I have been lucky.
We are concerned that Railtrack is starting to downgrade the upgrade and will do it on the cheap. I hope that that is not the case, because it would affect the high-speed tilting trains that are due to be used on the west coast main line very soon. We are also worried about the point made in The Guardian recently about considerable disruption in the vicinity of Euston station because of the upgrade. That will obviously cause problems for residents.
There has been talk about a public inquiry. A public inquiry, as we understand it, would be a disaster for the west coast main line. It would mean years and years of delay and the economy of the north-west and Scotland could not stand that problem.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton did not have an opportunity to mention the Select Committee document on regional Eurostar services, which is now in the Vote Office. My hon. Friend the Minister may have seen it. According to the first sentence, the regions have been cheated. The document goes on to say that the House gave permission for the construction of the channel tunnel in the belief that all the regions would benefit from it. We have seen no benefit. We need an assurance from the Government—perhaps not today—that the regions will have direct access to Europe through Eurostar services on the west coast.
A Railtrack document that I saw recently said that there were plans to provide Eurostar services between Glasgow and Edinburgh and on the east coast. That would not satisfy hon. Members who are in the Chamber today. I understand that there are also safety problems with east coast services, but that west coast services could be up and running soon. I hope that the Minister will address the difficulties.
I welcome the debate, and hope that the present Government will make good what went wrong under the last. We have reasonable communications in Cumbria, but they could be better. We have a particular problem with the roads that go from west Cumbria to eastern England, and we hope that the Government will put things right.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day) for breaking ground for me by raising some of the issues that I want to put to the Minister. Our constituencies, on the south-eastern side of Greater Manchester, experience problems caused not just by congestion and commuters, but by renewed economic growth.
Traffic flows were mentioned by both the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) and the hon. Member for Cheadle. Manchester airport is expanding rapidly; it is clearly very successful, and it is planned to become even more successful with the opening of the second runway by 2005. It is anticipated that the number of passengers travelling to and from the airport will increase from 16 million to 30 million, and that there will an additional 30,000 jobs in and around it.
A sensible strategy has been devised to divert as many passengers and workers as is feasible to public transport: the target is 25 per cent., and a vigorous start has been made. It is, however, a challenging target, which will be difficult to achieve. The development of the Metrolink, the opening of the southern link to the airport railway station and the provision of many new rail and coach services to various parts of the country will all help.
Let me make a constituency plea. Even if all the targets are met, as I hope they will be, an extra 8 million passengers will be travelling by road to the airport following its expansion. If the 25 per cent. target is achieved, 22,000 of the 30,000 extra jobs will still be filled by people travelling by road. According to my calculations—I shall be interested to hear whether the


Minister thinks differently—that means an extra 70,000 road trips per day in and out of the airport and the surrounding area.
As well as the severe congestion which—as the hon. Member for Cheadle pointed out—already exists, the opening of the second runway and the economic regeneration of the area will lead to an extra 70,000 road trips per day, even if the public transport strategy works to a T. Those of us who represent communities to the east of the airport—Hazel Grove, Bredbury and Romiley, for instance—face the prospect not just of passengers from our area and people with jobs at the airport travelling to it, but people whose homes are further to the east in Oldham, Tameside or even Sheffield using the conventional road system to filter through my area and that of the hon. Member for Cheadle and reach the airport.
In an intervention, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) hinted at the need for not just joined-up thinking, but joined-up roads to make the connection to the airport. This will allow the large majority of people who, according to any projection, will be using the road system to do so without destroying the local communities and environment.
In the past, Governments have recognised some of the needs. There are dotted lines on maps. Very shortly, the opening of the M60 link around the east side of Greater Manchester will provide a direct route from the M62 around the east of Manchester to the airport and the national motorway network on the west side of England. There is just one problem—the M60, as it passes through Stockport where for part of its length it has two lanes. It is already heavily congested during commuting times, and people use alternative routes, all of which run through my constituency. I am faced with the opening of a new motorway link from the M62 which points straight at the heart of my constituency, and, on the other side, I am faced with the Manchester airport eastern link road, which is partly finished and which also points straight at the heart of my constituency. In the middle is my constituency, with conventional, suburban, built-up roads that are already heavily congested, and will shortly experience the onslaught of new airport passengers and workers.

Mr. Day: Is it not important for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to accede to the requests that I understand will be made by both Stockport and Macclesfield borough councils for the western and eastern sections of the Manchester airport eastern link road, the Poynton bypass and the Hazel Grove bypass—the A6M—to remain a protected line of route?

Mr. Stunell: I agree. In fact, last Thursday Stockport metropolitan borough council decided to make that specific recommendation as part of its submission to the Minister. I have seen Lord Whitty—I know that the hon. Member for Cheadle has done the same—and talked to him about, in particular, the projected multi-modal study of the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester, a tremendous mouthful. I gather that the study is due to start in the spring, and that it will take two years to produce a report. Perhaps the Minister will confirm that. I do not know how long it will take to implement the report, but there will probably be considerably more delay before my constituents are relieved of their problems.
When I spoke to Lord Whitty, he gave me the clear impression that discussions would take place with local councils about the criteria for the study, and that they would have opportunities to be consulted and to participate. I have, however, heard from Stockport council the worrying suggestion that consultation on the criteria has not taken place, and is not projected to take place. Can the Minister assure me that it will?
Let me briefly make two points that were also made by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton, and with which I entirely agree. One relates to the difficulties that First North West Trains seems to be having in providing efficient and effective commuter services for my constituents and, no doubt, his. I hope that the Minister will keep a sharp eye on the franchise of that company, as I know that the passenger transport authority is doing, to ensure that it performs to the level that it is required to do by its franchise, and can reasonably be expected to do.
I pick up the point that was made by the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) relating to the Eurostar link. Last autumn, I wrote to the Minister and raised the issue of when Virgin's request to run Eurostar services would be considered. I understand that a review is going on. I had the impression that that would have reached a conclusion and that an announcement would have been made before Christmas. Unless I have missed it, I do not think that it has happened yet. Again, I ask the Minister whether that straightforward, simple step to improve our links with Europe and the rest of the world can be given an urgent push forward.

Mr. Graham Stringer: I declare some old interests in transport. For a long period—13 years—I was a paid director of the Manchester Ship Canal Company and of Manchester Ship Canal Development, which eventually became a wholly owned subsidiary of Peel Holdings, which now owns Liverpool airport. I spent 13 years as a director of Manchester airport and 11 years as a member of the Greater Manchester passenger transport authority.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on securing the debate and on the comprehensive review that he gave of transport in Greater Manchester and the north-west.
On the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) made about Eurostar; I had the difficult choice of whether to come to the debate, or to go to the press conference to launch the report on Eurostar by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It is a fascinating report and I commend it to all hon. Members who are present. It says simply that the regions were conned during the debate on investment in the channel tunnel into believing that there would be some benefit to the regions from having regional rail services.
When we examined the witnesses, including witnesses from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, we found not only that there is no benefit at the moment because we do not have Euro regional Tail services to Manchester, Glasgow and Edinburgh, but that the witnesses did not know what the impact of the channel tunnel on current links was; nor could they project what the impact might be if such regional rail services started.
My guess is that, because of all the investment in the south-east, the effect of the channel tunnel has been negative on the regional economies, but no one knows because the work has not been done. It should be.
At present, hundreds of millions of pounds worth of Eurostar regional rolling stock is kept in the sidings doing nothing. There is a simple choice for the Government; either they take up Virgin's offer to run the services at no cost to the taxpayer—one can be sceptical about that; not everything that Virgin promises comes into being—or there needs to be a subsidy.
The decision that the Government came to in sorting out London and Continental's financial mess and in agreeing the deal that will complete the channel tunnel link into London has meant that that service cannot subsidise the regions, so either there needs to be a small subsidy, or a commercial operator needs to be put in place that will carry through the services.
That would benefit the regions, particularly if we allowed that service to carry passengers who were not going all the way. It would bring immediate benefit for those people travelling from the regions just into London or somewhere beyond.
Another aspect of transport in the north-west that I want to talk about is airport and aviation policy. I start with two facts. In 1996, 10 million passengers from the north of England travelled on international scheduled services. Of those 10 million passengers, 4 million—four out of every 10—were forced into the south-east system to make connections.
We do not know how many of those intercontinental passengers did not go into the south-east, did not catch their intercontinental flight from this country, but chose Schipol, Frankfurt, Paris, Copenhagen or another European hub. The statistics would be worse if we could get that information. The money associated with those flights was lost.
Another fact illustrates how we could benefit if those passengers used regional airports, whether it be Manchester or Liverpool. About three years ago, a comparative study was undertaken of the airports at Schipol and Manchester. It showed that, if we looked at the economy immediately surrounding Schipol and at the north-west economy, Manchester airport—we could throw in Liverpool airport for these purposes too—was carrying only about a third of the passengers that Schipol airport was carrying. That fact ties in neatly with the fact that many passengers have been forced into the south-east system and probably into other European hubs.
What can we do about that? I want to be positive; it was slightly negative to start off with the failure of Eurostar to benefit the regions. What can we do to improve the position of the assets of the north-west, which Manchester and Liverpool airports certainly are?
Two relatively simple things can be done to enable business and leisure passengers who want to travel from the north-west and do not particularly want to change planes in London to do so. First, the previous Government declared unilaterally an open-skies policy with America, so that American planes could fly in and take passengers. For regional airports, again, unilaterally, we should declare an open-skies policy—we have done it partially—so that foreign carriers can fly in and pick up passengers.
For sensible commercial reasons, British carriers want a hub in the south-east and it is in their interests to concentrate on the south-east. If they want to do that, that is

entirely justified. We should however give passengers the right to get on to those carriers that want to fly in and out of regional airports. There would be an immediate benefit. When a previous Minister with responsibility for transport, the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), agreed an open-skies policy with North America for the regions, there was, over a fairly short period, a gradual, but immediate increase in the number of flights by American carriers into Manchester airport.
The second thing involves a complicated legal issue and would need legislation. Manchester airport is a highly profitable company; now that Liverpool airport is owned by a positive, commercially active private company, things have improved enormously compared with the time when British Aerospace was in control. Manchester airport has one of the best profits to capital employed ratios of any company in the private or public sector, but because, effectively, it is only allowed to do those things that its owners are allowed to do by law—10 authorities own it—it cannot take full advantage of commercial partnership arrangements, for example, with Liverpool.
One of the first things that the Deputy Prime Minister did when he took up his post was to participate in the announcement by Manchester and Liverpool airports that they wanted to co-operate. Those airports may want to buy other airports, to go into joint marketing ventures, and to do what the rest of the transport industry is doing: amalgamating with bus and train companies. Certainly the separation that was there five years ago is no more. To do that, there has to be a change in the vires that freeze up Manchester airport and any similar airport, so that we can get the benefit of those changes in the law.
The old solution of the previous Government, which was that, if there is a problem, privatise it, would be completely wrong. Manchester airport would not be the success it is today had it been privatised 20 years ago. I am not saying that some privatisations have not been successful—they have—but the necessary long-term view of infrastructure investment would not have happened had there been short-term decisions.
Those are the solutions. I was heartened to hear that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister told the Select Committee that he had long advocated that northern airports should not be disadvantaged because of the interests of southern airports such as Heathrow. I take that to mean that he understands that there has to be an uncoupling of the negotiations around British Airways and Heathrow and access to Heathrow in the interests of the northern airports. If that happens, we will see huge benefits for the north-west, with the airports working together trying to benefit the entire region in a new legal framework.
There is a great deal of controversy about roads. Roads can bring economic advantages and disadvantages—we do not always know. They can take jobs away as easily as they can provide them. That is true of many other forms of transport investment, but it is not true of airports. There is a straight correlation between the number of passengers using an airport and the jobs created. In virtually every airport that has ever been studied in western economies—whether it is northern Europe or western Europe—for every 1 million passengers who fly through the airport about 1,000 jobs are created on site and about 1,000 are created in related industries close by. That is 2,000 jobs without saying anything about what is induced in the local economy because the business flier is able to fly in and


out and invest. A complicated economic analysis is involved. There is no doubt that the growth of those airports is the fundamental driver of the north-west economy in the same way as cotton was important 200 years ago and engineering was important about 50 or 100 years ago. I hope that we can see some movement to support the growth of those airports.

Mr. Michael Jack: The comments of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) about the importance of transport to the vibrancy of the north-west economy reflect what many hon. Members have said in their contributions. The comments so far represent many of the frustrations that we all feel when we are serving the interests of our constituents and trying to put right transport issues, which are vital if we are to achieve our common goal of wanting to see the north-west prosper in the future.
I have heard the M6 mentioned during the debate. I know that work is being undertaken to look at some of the remaining key pinch points on that route. To improve access to the north-west, either by car or lorry, the M6 must be upgraded in parts of the north-west, but not, I hasten to add, near Carlisle. At times, the road appears to be impassable. Its importance cannot be underrated and we should not forget it.
Many hon. Members have commented on the integration of transport. That is an aspiration to which we would all adhere. The ease with which one can move from one mode of transport to another is important, particularly if we are to make public transport a real option for car users. Preston, part of which is in my constituency, illustrates precisely some of the difficulties we face. The rail network is to the west of the town and the bus depot is sited at the north-east of the town. The idea of smooth integration such as that witnessed in, for example, Hammersmith in London, where one can go straight from the bus into the tube system, will remain a dream for Preston. If we are to address the traffic problems in Preston and on the Fylde coast and persuade people to use the railways and buses, that type of integration is the physical solution to which we must aspire. Inevitably, there will be further debates reflecting on that point.
I hope that the Minister might be able to say something about the possibility of eventually extending the M65 all the way to Yorkshire. The developments that have taken place are of enormous benefit but, as other colleagues have observed, although natural routeways exist there are gaps in the system. We are all acutely aware of the pressures on the M62, particularly at peak times, in linking that important north-west corridor to the ports on the east coast.
I endorse what many hon. Members have said about Manchester airport. On public transport, there is still a major education job to be done if we are to alert people to the real benefits of the alternative. Equally, providers must be educated to concentrate on quality issues. In many cases it is difficult to persuade car drivers, including me, out of their cars and on to buses. They realise that the bus will not provide them with the same degree of comfort as they are used to enjoying in their cars. There are bus designs now that are meeting that problem, and public transport providers should reflect on that.
I want to concentrate on a much more localised issue. I am delighted to see the hon. Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for West Lancashire (Mr. Pickthall) in their places because I suspect that they will also want to talk about moss roads. Before people immediately leap to the conclusion that those are some sort of ancient green-covered routeway in the north-west, I shall explain that moss roads are the vernacular expression for a vital series of routeways that pass through the constituencies of Lancaster and Wyre—particularly the Wyre area—West Lancashire and my constituency of Fylde.
Recently, councillor Richard Toon, who looks after transport in Lancashire, made some comments to the local press under the heading:
Crumbling roads face being shut".
The fact that I am raising this issue and that other hon. Members may also choose to do so is an illustration of how long, under the previous Government and this Government, we have been making representations about the very special problems faced by this rural network of roads.
My research has shown that this type of road exists only in Norfolk, Lincolnshire and Lancashire. In correspondence to me recently, the Minister tried to suggest that the roads were similar to those being affected by subsidence in mining areas. I acknowledge that there may be a special case in those instances, but there are special factors over and above the normal wear and tear that affect the rural network of moss roads.
One of the problems is that they are built on a foundation of peat and sometimes a combination of peat and sand. That oxidises because of the weather and time and, eventually, the roads are left sitting feet out of the ground while the land around them subsides. The substructure of the road is then incapable of supporting the carriageway. The next stage is the creation of what I would describe as a funicular railway effect. The roads go up and down and break up and the routeway is in danger of being destroyed. Long periods of dry weather can have a bad effect on the routeways, which are obviously beyond the control of man given the current technology.
In May last year the county council estimated that the cost of putting the roads right was about £32.6 million. The annual safety and maintenance figures alone amount to £400,000. That figure was further revised when the county's environment director noted that a sum total of £5.3 million had been spent on those routeways in the past seven years, but that they simply were not able to keep up with the problems. The new estimate for reconstructing that vital rural network of roads is now £43.5 million. Councillor Toon made what I thought was a telling comment when he said that
simply patching them up is like throwing money away because they deteriorate at an enormous rate.
That lies at the heart of this problem.
In total, we are looking at 47.5 km of this vital rural routeway in Lancashire, of which 22 km are in a severely distressed condition. In correspondence with me, the Minister attempted to argue that Lancashire should, like everywhere else, like it or lump it and use the money allocated to it under the standard spending assessment to look after the routeways. I am sure that the Minister understands that it is well beyond the county council's ability to look after the roads within the headroom given


by the SSA. The construction of the general formula does not allow flexibility in recognition of such specialised local conditions. The Minister mentioned mining subsidence. That is also a special condition. Sometimes our nationally agreed formulae are too inflexible to recognise local problems. I am confident that the Government will be sympathetic to my arguments, particularly in the light of their stated intention to produce a new rural White Paper, one of the key themes of which will no doubt be the maintenance of good transport links in rural areas.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—I call him my hon. Friend in this context because we work closely together on rural matters—will want to say something about the problems in his constituency if he is called, because I recognise that they are even greater than those in my constituency. The county's environment directorate has made it clear that the moss roads in Wyre, West Lancashire and Fylde are of the highest priority.
I should like to put on record my appreciation for the diligent way in which Mr. Graham Harding has represented the interests of moss roads to hon Members. In a letter to me on 22 May last year, he said:
Those sections of the moss roads that have had major schemes in the last 10 years are deteriorating to such an extent that compared with 'normal' roads they would be considered to have no residual life and unsafe. The need for work on the moss roads is beyond what could be regarded as normal maintenance and should be regarded as 'small improvements' owing to the need to completely remove the moss road foundations of the existing carriageway and reconstruct these roads on the existing alignment.
He goes on to point out that research is being undertaken on other similar road problems. He says:
It is my understanding that the Highways Agency is looking for sites for recycling trials using secondary aggregates and it is a pity that, whilst an ideal site in the moss roads is also available the different sources of funding mean that it is not able to be pursued.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his positive comments. Does he agree that, while reconstruction of the moss roads is fundamental to the rural economy and the life of the rural community, the most important issue is road safety? He will be aware of an incident that happened two weeks ago yesterday in which some of his constituents may have been involved. A double-decker bus carrying 30 schoolchildren tipped over on one of the moss roads. Fortunately, it was saved by a telegraph pole, preventing serious injury to any of the children. Does he regard that as a warning to us all about the grievous consequences of not investing properly in the work?

Mr. Jack: I am grateful for that telling point. The mention of a busload of children shows the vital contribution that the network of rural roads plays in linking sometimes far-flung villages and those involved in farming and horticulture. If the Minister visits the north-west, it would be to her advantage if her officials could carve out a few moments for her to travel along such roads. Once she has seen them, understood their importance as transport links for rural Lancashire and witnessed how dangerous they are when they start to deteriorate, the point will be made.
The moss roads are a special case. This is special pleading. However, as the Minister has seen, there is agreement across the House that something must be done,

even if in the first instance it is research by the Department into techniques to stabilise the roads and stop their deterioration. That would at least be a positive start to a programme to address that small but vital problem for many important parts of rural Lancashire.

Mr. Derek Twigg: I realise that time is tight, so I shall cut what would have been a 10-minute speech to five minutes. I shall do my best to get as much in as possible.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) for securing the debate and congratulate him on his excellent speech. Transport links in the north-west are fundamental to our economy and our social fabric. The north-west has the second largest economy in the country. I welcome the Government's integrated transport strategy. The proposals are welcome in my constituency and throughout the north-west.
It would be a surprise if I did not speak about Halton. Many people accuse me of seeing it as the centre of the universe. There are plenty of important transport links in my constituency, including the Manchester ship canal, the M56, the M62, the major Mersey crossing, and the Bridgewater canal, with Liverpool airport on our doorstep. I shall focus on the Runcorn-Widnes bridge, which is the major transport issue in my constituency and in the Cheshire and Merseyside sub-region. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware of the problems.
The crossing was built in 1961 and is taking far more traffic than it was designed for. It is one of the landmarks of the north-west. When it is lit up at night it is one of the finest sights around. However, in addition to the 17 per cent. traffic increase since 1991, it has major structural and maintenance problems. I am glad that the Government have recognised some of those and increased the amount that Halton borough council can spend on maintenance and improvements to the bridge.
The bridge is important for transport in the north-west and for the economy in Cheshire and Merseyside. Building a second crossing would create between 5,000 and 5,500 jobs and improve the local economy. The current bridge cannot cope. I am sure that our integrated transport policy will be successful, but it will not solve the capacity problems. There are three options—an eastern crossing, a western crossing and a central crossing. All have their merits and costs. We are trying to find out from the regional development association and the Government which would be the best option.
I favour the eastern crossing. It is not the most expensive, it would have the least environmental impact and it would link with the Runcorn busway. It is not possible to shut off one lane on either side of the current four-lane bridge to use as a busway. That would cause chaos in the region and on the M6. Such a suggestion would be nonsense. However, an eastern crossing would fit in nicely with a busway, which could be extended to Widnes and would sit well with the Government's integrated transport strategy.
The Runcorn busway is unique. It is regarded throughout Europe and the world as an example of how a busway could be. It covers 22 km around Runcorn, with housing, shops and businesses all close to it. It was intended to have a 50:50 split between public and private transport, but in reality only about 20 per cent. of work


trips are made by bus. Improvements are needed in its structure and its environment. It needs safer bus stops and bus stations and must be made more attractive.
Halton Transport is one of the few municipally owned bus companies that makes a profit, providing modern, safe transport. It is an example of how the public sector can be a commercial success while providing an important public service.
The west coast main line passes through my constituency, with trains stopping at Runcorn station. The station is crucial to the economy in my area and the north-west generally. Virgin Trains has made a start and, in all fairness, has made some improvements, but it is still a long way from delivering the service that is needed. Putting up the prices and throwing in a few cheese croissants and a couple of drinks is not what I call an improved public service; but we shall see.
I have a letter from a company in my area about ticket pricing and the 9 o'clock deadline. The letter asks how the company's staff can be encouraged to use public transport rather than a car to go to London, when they face exorbitant prices for train travel, especially with the deadline at 9 o'clock, which is not the busiest time on the way back from London.
Runcorn station, which is well used, needs refurbishment, and I believe that there are plans for that. Widnes station is famous because Paul Simon wrote "Homeward Bound" on it; I do not know whether that was because in the 1960s Widnes reminded him of his home town or because he wanted to get away from it, but we have a little bit of faith.
Manchester airport has been discussed, and we should not forget Liverpool airport. It is important to develop links between the two. Liverpool is the fastest-growing regional airport in the country and provides an awful lot of jobs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) said, the expansion can produce a guaranteed 1,000 extra jobs. The airport has an environmental as well as an economic impact on my constituency, but it is a very important employer.
Transport is crucial for the improvement of the economy in the north-west, including my area and Merseyside and Cheshire. I am positive that the Government's approach will ensure success.

Mr. Graham Brady: I congratulate the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on securing this important debate, which has been very constructive. My appearance at the Dispatch Box should not be taken as lending any credence whatever to rumours that have been circulating recently in the press; it is my first appearance and could easily be my last. This issue is vital for the north-west and I am delighted to be here to represent Her Majesty's Opposition on a matter of such importance to our region.
Both Government and Opposition Members have spoken eloquently in support of projects and improvements that are vital to our regional economy and to our constituents' quality of life. Our region's prosperity has been built on trade; without effective transport links that trade and that prosperity will die.
There has been good news over the years, and we should not forget that; it is easy in a debate such as this to list only the problems. The good news includes the success of the port of Liverpool in recent years. Many people forget that the port of Manchester still handles 9 million tonnes of freight per annum. The Metrolink has already been referred to, first by the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton.
Many hon. Members have mentioned the west coast main line; decades of underinvestment under public ownership have given way to some hopeful signs of major investment and a prospect of serious improvement. Billions of pounds of private money are going into upgrading the track and Virgin Trains is spending £1.3 billion on new trains. There is already more freight on the railways than in the dark days when British Rail was even found on occasion to be persuading companies not to move freight by rail, because it found it inconvenient to handle it.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) referred especially knowledgably to Manchester airport. It is a great success story for the region and is vital to the development of the regional economy. It has been said that the airport is set to double its number of passengers and of employees, and it is essential that it should be allowed to thrive and prosper.
There are, however, real problems for the region. Transport links must be improved for the benefit of tourism and the area's service industries, as well as the manufacturing sector, which has perhaps the more obvious need. The Engineering and Marine Training Authority has estimated that north-west engineering companies are the least likely to export: 36 per cent. against a national average of 45 per cent. That must be improved if we are to increase our region's prosperity, and we need improved transport links to do that, not only within the north-west but on the essential routes linking us with other parts of the United Kingdom.
The north-west is important not only in itself but as part of a transport link to Scotland, as the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew) said, and to Northern Ireland. Transport links across the north-west to the Irish sea ports are vital if we are to have lasting peace in Northern Ireland.
Much of the north-west's strategic transport system is choked and congested. The new Government have increased fuel duty, which was already high, and will take £9 billion more from motorists in this Parliament, but the roads programme has been slashed and investment in public transport is frozen. The Deputy Prime Minister recently repeated projections that traffic will grow by a third in the next 20 years, and meanwhile people are paying dearly for the privilege of sitting in queues on the M6.
Road signs on the M60 and connecting roads are scruffy and illegible and vital road improvements have been cancelled or kicked into the long grass for further studies. The old, transparent cost-benefit analysis has been cast aside in favour of choices that often appear inconsistent and irrational. Some very important road schemes have been cut, including the improvement of junctions 12 to 18 on the M60 and junction 6 of the M62.
The A6(M) Stockport bypass was referred to earlier, and the A555 Poynton bypass is crucial to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).


Perhaps the most important of all is the improvement and completion of the Manchester airport eastern and western link roads. The hon. Member for Carlisle mentioned the A590 in Cumbria, which is also of key concern to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins).
Studies have been ordered into necessary road schemes and into M6 capacity problems. The Minister does not need studies to know about those problems.

Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brady: I would very much like to, but I am afraid that I have very little time, as I am keen to leave time for the Minister to respond.
To study the capacity constraints on the M6 one needs merely to drive up it and experience the bottlenecks at numerous points. There is also a study into congestion in the south-east quadrant of Manchester. Improvements are urgently needed and should be started without delay. The M6 was designed to carry between 70,000 and 80,000 vehicles a day but it is already carrying more than 140,000. As 90 per cent. of exports from the north-west travel through the west midlands, that transport link must be improved for the health of our economy.
I could not conclude my remarks without referring to the Birmingham northern relief road, which is essential not only to the north-west but to the west midlands. It has been termed the single most important strategic highway in the United Kingdom, and I endorse that. These congestion problems must be tackled as a matter of urgency.
Several hon. Members mentioned the airport link roads. They are of great importance to the local communities in Bramhall, Poynton, Woodford, Heald Green and Hazel Grove, as well as to the economy of Manchester and the north-west generally. Without a proper infrastructure providing links to the airport at a time of rapid growth, the region's economic development will be hindered. It is essential that the road schemes should be completed.
The Minister has been asked many questions, and I will remind her of one or two. The Birmingham northern relief road is perhaps the most important strategic link for our region. Further improvements are needed along the M6, and not only on the section leading up to Carlisle and on to Scotland; for many, indeed all, of us, it is perhaps even more important that the bottlenecks all along the M6 are tackled. The road links to the airport—without which the airport's growth and development will be a problem and a hindrance to local communities, rather than a benefit—have been mentioned. Clarity in the proposed arrangements for the privatisation of National Air Traffic Services would be helpful, and we need proper safety guarantees at a time when the airport may be disrupted by safety concerns.
As a Member who represents the north-west, I would be delighted to continue raising concerns about the region. However, I am conscious of the desire of all Members to hear the Minister's response, to which I look forward as well.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box—although I regret that his appearance did not confirm some of the stories circulating in the press. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Dobbin) on obtaining this important debate. I feel I should declare an interest, as I was born and raised in the north-west.
All hon. Members have underlined the importance of transport—and particularly integrated transport systems—to employment, regeneration and the protection of our environment. Many issues have been raised, not least the west coast main line, Eurostar services and regional airports. The west coast main line was referred to by my hon. Friends the Members for Heywood and Middleton and for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), and the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).
Railtrack has announced a £1.35 billion improvement of the west coast main line as part of the modernisation process. I hope that I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle, who has been reading stories about modernisation being done on the cheap, that I will certainly raise his concerns with the Health and Safety Executive. There can be no reduction in or infringement of the safety requirements on our railways.
Eurostar was referred to by several hon. Members, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer). My hon. Friend serves on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, and the Government welcome the Committee's recent report. We intend to consider carefully its recommendations and, of course, we will publish a full response in due course.
We expect the report to contain the criteria for the review that we are commissioning on Eurostar regional services. The Government believe—as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has made clear on many occasions—that people living beyond London should have convenient and effective access to the channel tunnel rail services. That is why we are undertaking an independent review of those services, and we will make further announcements soon on that issue of national importance.
What has come out of this morning's debate is the remarkable difference between the approach of the Government to the issues of transport and integration and the lamentable failures of the previous Administration. Much has been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House about the particular difficulties within their constituencies—a point made by the hon. Members for Cheadle and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). They referred to the unbearable congestion and inevitable pollution that impacts upon their constituents because of the complete failure of the previous Administration, over 18 years, to begin to tackle the difficulties caused by the belief that the solution to all our transport difficulties was the old predict-and-provide system. They refused to acknowledge the fact that improving roads exclusively simply increased traffic.
The Government have moved markedly away from that benighted approach, and that is the reason for our integrated transport strategy. However, it is not just a matter of policy. We are giving practical funding to local authorities to ensure that their local transport plans can bring into play the necessary integration to ensure that we make the best possible use of existing infrastructure, and begin to move away from the idea that only one form of transport infrastructure can possibly meet this nation's economic and environmental needs.
We have envisaged an important planning and co-ordinating role at a regional level—for all regions. We have proposed that regional planning guidance should include a regional transport strategy. That will be a key task for a north-west regional assembly. The strategy will set out regional priorities for transport investment, including the role of trunk and local roads.
At this point, I confirm to my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that detrunking is by no means equivalent to demoting. Local authorities have been arguing for a considerable time that they would like to take on the responsibility for those roads, and that is the subject of discussions. My hon. Friend also referred to finance, and we envisage a time when the whole life-costs of a road will be considered during the detrunking process.
Another recurring theme of the debate this morning was the importance of regional air services—a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley. He will be aware that the Government have announced a series of regional air studies—the fourth of these, which will examine regional air services in the north-east, the north-west and York and Humberside, will be announced shortly. He was right—as were other hon. Members—about the importance of our airports, but even more importantly, the importance of surface access to them; a point made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove.
We are asking regions to work together, and we must get away from the idea that local authorities must argue exclusively for their own concerns, because those can impact upon contingent local authorities. Much good work, however, has been done in the north-west.

Mr. Day: During the review of transport needs in the south-east quadrant of Greater Manchester, would the Minister be willing to visit the problem areas that have been identified in the debate? Will the requests from Macclesfield borough council and Stockport borough council for protection of the line of route of the roads referred to in the debate be looked upon favourably?

Ms Jackson: In terms of my possible visit to the sites, that is highly unlikely in the immediate to short term, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman on both of those issues.
It will be important for a regional strategy to take account of all the transport studies that have been referred in the debate when considering an integrated transport strategy for the region. That is very much the thrust of our White Paper. We must get away from the blind wisdom that said that we could build roads to meet ever-growing demand. We must have longer-term, sustainable solutions, and that is the message we are receiving from the travelling public. That was the clear message from the extensive consultation that we undertook prior to publishing our White Paper.
We must reduce dependency on the car, and switch to more sustainable transport modes—train, bus, cycling, walking. Our aim is to increase choice for all by improving alternative modes of transport to secure sustainable mobility. Emphasis is very much on a package of measures. There is no big idea to solve all the problems of transport and the environment—the problems are complex. That was a recurring theme of all the speeches that we have heard. A range of different solutions tailored to local circumstances will be needed—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We must move on to the next debate.

Highcliffe School

Mr. Christopher Chope: Originally, I had intended to use this debate to raise the case of my constituent Miss Sujata Halder and her application for exceptional leave to remain in the United Kingdom. However, as soon as my success in the ballot became known, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), invited me to a meeting at the Home Office.
At that meeting, which was held last Thursday, we discussed the case, and the Under-Secretary promised to reconsider it. On Monday afternoon, the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary finally decided to exercise their discretion in favour of my constituent and to allow her to remain in this country. I am most grateful to the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary for having addressed the arguments that I raised on behalf of Miss Haider and for ensuring that justice is done in her case.
I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), who is present this afternoon. His agreement to allow me to change the subject of the debate has given me the opportunity to raise the matter of the funding of Highcliffe comprehensive grant-maintained school. I hope that the Minister will be as good a listener as his Home Office colleagues.
Highcliffe comprehensive is the only grant-maintained secondary school in the ancient borough of Christchurch. Following a decision by the previous Government, it now has a sixth form, which it operates on a collaborative basis with two other Christchurch secondary schools—the Grange and Twynham. I am fortunate in having some excellent schools in my constituency, but none has a better academic record than Highcliffe, which came top in Dorset in the 1998 secondary school performance tables published on 1 December. It is a recognised centre of educational excellence and attracts more pupils than it can accommodate, many of them from Hampshire.
To mention Hampshire is to remind the Minister that no debate about schools in my constituency would be complete without another reference to the gross injustice and unfairness of the Government's decision not to alter the area cost adjustment element of the methodology for grant distribution. That means, for example, that another fine secondary school in my constituency—Ferndown upper school—receives £300,000 a year less than it would if it were situated a few miles down the road in Hampshire. The same is true for the schools in Christchurch.
The Government have decided to freeze the methodology for three years, but I can assure the Minister that the argument will not go away, as the feeling of great injustice about the matter persists in my constituency. That sense of injustice is evident in a letter that was sent to the Prime Minister on 20 January by Dr. Howard, the headmaster at Ferndown upper school. I shall not read the letter in full, but Dr. Howard states:
the anomalies of the present system, as here on the Dorset-Hampshire border, are so gross that they cry out for change… Many of us had hoped in 1997, with a new administration in power, that we would also see the practical application of a commitment to fairness and justice. We are now sadly disappointed.

I hope that the Minister will listen again to the matters raised in that letter.
Highcliffe school has benefited from its grant-maintained status, which it attained in 1992–93. Since then, the school's governors have acted in what they consider to be a prudent and efficient manner and have used all the funds at their disposal for the benefit of pupils. With the Government's decision to abolish grant-maintained status, Highcliffe has opted for foundation status from later this year. One of the matters that I hope that the Minister will deal with in this short debate is the funding consequence for the school of that change of status. It is far from clear what will happen in the next financial year, but the school fears that it may lose as much as £40,000.
The matter is causing much concern. The consultation paper preceding the Government's legislation to abolish grant-maintained schools stated:
The aim should be to level up rather than down, moving all schools towards the level of school budget management currently applying in the GM sector, while ensuring that key services which can only be provided by the LEA … are properly resourced.
In February last year, the then Minister for School Standards, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who is now the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, told the Committee considering the School Standards and Framework Bill:
The Government have repeatedly said that, in accordance with the finding of the Public Accounts Committee, many GM schools received funding over and above that received by local authority schools. It is a question not only of delegated budgets, but of additional support. As a result, the pupil unit costs in local authorities are often far higher for GM schools than for the local authority maintained school. We have said that our objective is not to cut the amount being spent on pupils in GM schools but to increase the funding for pupils in other schools. We are therefore levelling up."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 12 February 1998; c. 461.]
So the then Minister, in those remarks, addressed the concerns of a number of schools in the maintained sector and said that, despite the disparities, funding would be levelled up rather than down. Since then, however, the Government have stated that the basic approach to funding in 1999–2000 should be protection, in cash terms, at 1998–99 budget levels per pupil. That suggests that no allowance is being made for inflation and that the funding for former grant-maintained schools will be kept static in cash terms while other schools catch up. Although that appears to be at odds with previous ministerial statements, I hope that the Minister will assure me that that is the wrong interpretation to put on those words.
Another recent development is that Ministers have decided to exclude from the base budget used to calculate the guaranteed amount per pupil the special purpose grant element known as SPG(N). Moreover, it is made clear in a letter from the Department for Education and Employment dated 20 October 1998 that Ministers have also decided that they, and not the local education authorities, will be responsible for calculating the level of GMS protected funding, in consultation with the Funding Agency for Schools.
Those statements have caused much confusion and uncertainty at Highcliffe and, no doubt, at other grant-maintained schools. They are worried about the level of funding that they will receive in the coming financial year.
The crisis that the Highcliffe governors face is made worse by the next problem that I wish to raise on behalf of the school. To the uninitiated, that problem is both complex and esoteric. It concerns the consequences for Highcliffe of a reduction in the school's rateable value, announced in 1994–95 in response to an appeal by Dorset county council as long ago as 1990. As a school with charitable status, Highcliffe has to pay only 20 per cent. of its rates assessment. It has made provision to repay that portion of the 20 per cent. of which it has been relieved as a result of the change in rateable value.
However, the complication arises in the treatment of the remaining 80 per cent. Highcliffe receives some funding that emanates from Dorset county council under what is called LMS replication. Before Highcliffe received charitable status, it was liable for 100 per cent. of its rates. Therefore, under the LMS replication rules, Dorset county council has been paying the Funding Agency for Schools the 100 per cent. contribution for rates, despite the fact that only 20 per cent. of that would be payable by the school to the local authority.
As part of the annual maintenance grant provided to the school, a payment is made to the school to offset the value added tax that it, because it is not registered for VAT, has to pay for the purchase of any items on which is VAT is payable. That grant is referred to as SPG(V)—special purpose grant (VAT). The calculation of that grant is not laid down in any regulations and the Funding Agency for Schools was not bound by any inherited basis of calculation. However, the agency decided that the formula for calculating the grant should be by reference to the rateable value of the school. The system operated on the basis that Highcliffe was given a sum of money sufficient to meet the full rates bill without any allowance for charitable relief.
Once received in the hands of Highcliffe, the actual rates payable were paid to the Christchurch borough council and the remainder of the money was kept to offset VAT. My understanding is that, if the difference between rates payable and the sum received does not exceed 2.5 per cent. of the annual maintenance grant, an additional sum will be paid as SPGV.
The nub of that part of the story is that the calculation for VAT relief bears no relation to the amount of VAT paid by the school on goods and services bought. We are talking about a notional formula that has had some bizarre results, particularly where there has been a reduction in rateable values. Where that has happened, Dorset county council, the education authority, expects to be refunded the difference on the whole sum by the funding agency—an argument with which it is hard to disagree.
The Funding Agency for Schools remained uncertain for several years whether, in such circumstances, it should make a corresponding clawback from the annual maintenance grant. In logic, there was no reason why it should do so because it was a deemed payment for a special purpose but, without the clawback the funding agency would be out of pocket.
The question is simply one of equity: where should the loss fall? Should it fall on an individual school, even if the impact on its ability to meet its requirements might be severe, or should it be borne by the funding agency? I look forward to hearing the Minister's opinion because

the funding agency clearly did not find that an easy question to answer. Sadly, it ultimately reached the wrong conclusion and passed the burden on to the individual school.
As a way out of a dilemma, the funding agency adopted successive strategies. First, it denied a claim by Dorset county council for repayment. When that did not work, it investigated whether it should apply special purpose grant to Highcliffe and the other schools affected, but decided not to do so, and then it considered the circumstances in each school.
I have gone into the technical detail to give the Minister a flavour of the subject. The essence is that, on 3 August 1998, the funding agency sent Highcliffe school a letter to the effect that it intended to recover £83,000 from the school, which had been overpaid. The school cannot afford to repay that sum and it would cause a great crisis in its finances.
The school wanted to find out why the agency had reached its conclusion. The agency had received a report by Robson Rhodes, the chartered accountants, and the school, not unreasonably, asked to see a copy. Despite the efforts of the school, correspondence with the Treasury solicitor and parliamentary questions that I tabled here, the Funding Agency for Schools has refused to divulge the contents of the report. That has created a climate of suspicion.
I hope that the Minister will allow the report to be issued. It cannot be consistent with the principles of open government that a report used to deprive Highcliffe of £83,000 is not available to the school and its governors. They have been told that they will have to show on their accounts that they have an unmet liability for £83,000 and that it will be repayable over three years. They are far from certain as to how that will be done.
I should be grateful if the Minister would say how that liability will interact with the new funding regime, which comes into effect when the school loses grant-maintained status. I should also be grateful if he could explain what he expects the school to do. It is unable to prove that the funding agency made an error in its calculations because it cannot see its workings. Clearly, the agency has been very coy about giving information. A number of straightforward questions, which I tabled to the Minister and which were referred to the funding agency, have been ducked. The agency purports not even to know the total amount of money involved in its dealings with all grant-maintained schools, something that I find disingenuous in the extreme.
Those are important issues and I hope that the Minister will produce a solution for Highcliffe school today. This is a serious problem—£83,000 coupled, perhaps, with the loss of £40,000 next year as a result of the change of status, for a school with about 1,200 pupils. It does not need me to spell out that that will have serious implications for the quality of the education that will be provided by Highcliffe.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate—it is always moving to hear appeals about poverty from deprived areas of the country, such as Christchurch, which he represents. I also congratulate him on his


success with his constituent, which led to the change of subject matter for the debate. That is yet another example of the way in which the Government respond to the concerns raised by hon. Members. Finally, I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks about the academic success of Highcliffe school and join him in congratulating the school on that success and on its record, which is well known.
I will deal with the two fundamental points raised by the hon. Gentleman in reverse order—first, with the annual maintenance grant and its redetermination and, secondly, with the general issue of funding.
The Funding Agency for Schools for England has considered Highcliffe school and the other cases carefully. It may be worth giving some background. Where the rates bill has been reduced for past years and schools have received more annual maintenance grant from the funding agency than they should have—money that has not been spent because of the reduction in rate assessment—the regulations permit the agency to redetermine the calculation for previous years if any fact comes to light that would have affected it. The rates revaluation is one such fact, although others are involved, such as pupil numbers and so forth.
That practice goes back to the beginnings of the grant-maintained sector. The regulations that permit the funding agency to do that were introduced by the Conservative Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, according to principles to which he subscribed at the time. The Funding Agency for Schools has simply carried through that process according to its responsibility for securing the proper use of public moneys, as is right and proper. In principle, I conclude that the funding agency was right to redetermine Highcliffe's annual maintenance grant and to recover any overpayment.
In exercising those rights, which has to be done carefully, the Funding Agency for Schools considered the situation for a long time—several years, as you implied. It took detailed legal advice because some of the grant-maintained schools affected were worried and the funding agency was correctly concerned to ensure that any decision that it took accorded with the law and could be properly sustained in the courts. It also took detailed financial advice—you mentioned the accountants, Robson Rhodes and their analyses not only of Highcliffe, but of all the schools involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I must remind Ministers as well as Back Benchers of the correct form of address. I think that the Minister is referring to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). If he uses the second person, he is referring to the Chair.

Mr. Clarke: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and I apologise for the slip. I was so concerned to refresh my memory as to whether the Member for Christchurch was right honourable or honourable that I missed that point. I apologise to you and to him for the mistake.
The Funding Agency for Schools considered the situation carefully, took detailed legal advice and took financial advice from Robson Rhodes for all the schools involved. It considered Highcliffe and the other schools with which it was dealing in that round at meetings held

in June and July 1998. At that time, 36 grant-maintained schools were in the position that I described and had received more money than they should have following the rates redetermination. Of those 36, it was decided immediately to recover the funds overpaid from 33. That course of action was not taken for the remaining three schools, which included Highcliffe, because the agency wanted to study in more detail their financial situation to understand correctly the implications of any decision. They considered those matters most carefully.
The hon. Gentleman rightly quoted the cost to Highcliffe as £83,000, which represents about 4 per cent. of the school's £2.14 million annual maintenance grant budget for 1998–99. Although it is a significant sum, it must be considered in the context of the overall grant that the school received for the coming year.
The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know why the rates revaluation is so significant for ex-grant-maintained schools. He described the formula that was used as "complex, if not esoteric". Under the rules that were established by the Government of whom he was a member, schools were funded for 100 per cent. of their rates bills, despite the fact that they had to pay only 20 per cent. The 80 per cent. relief was used to pay VAT charges in a back-of-the-envelope calculation of the type that the hon. Gentleman described. Before the hon. Gentleman described the formula as "complex, if not esoteric", I had noted the phrase "toy-town economics". I am glad that we are getting rid of that aspect of the grant-maintained school regime.
The figures that produced the uncertainties, difficulties and problems that the hon. Gentleman described were ludicrous as they were based not on fact, but on a back-of-the-envelope formula that had been decided by the Government of the day. The hon. Gentleman was right to describe it as esoteric and to criticise the system that created the problem. I hope that he will agree that we were right to get rid of that ludicrous formula.
As part of the transitional process, legal responsibility in respect of the three schools that are still facing a problem—it was resolved immediately in 33 cases and three cases are outstanding—passes to the Secretary of State on the advice of the Funding Agency for Schools. I understand that the FAS will be advising in all three cases that the money is recovered in full and paid immediately. According to the FAS, the current balances at Highcliffe school will leave the school with a healthy surplus this year even after payment of the £83,000.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter in the House and I shall be happy to receive any further financial submissions from the school if it considers that the advice is inappropriate, for example. On the basis of the advice received from the FAS, the Secretary of State will recover the overpayment in full. Frankly, despite the articulate advocacy of the hon. Gentleman, there is no reason whatever for Highcliffe school to be treated differently from all other ex-grant-maintained schools.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been any exceptions to the position that I described. I am advised that there were two: Wibsey school in Bradford, which is the only local education authority with grant-maintained schools that does not redetermine school budgets after rates have been revalued, and Desborough school in


Windsor and Maidenhead, which was agreed very early on by the FAS, which then rapidly realised that it would be setting a precedent that would result in a large loss of resource to education in the sector. The FAS decided not to accept that as a precedent although the decision had occurred at the very beginning of the process.
There is no particular reason to reconsider the position of Highcliffe. There have been scores of decisions on schools since the process began. There is no reason why Highcliffe should be treated differently, so in my view the FAS made the right decision.
The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of disclosure of documentation. As he probably knows, the FAS has given Highcliffe detailed reasons for its decision. It has responded positively to further requests for information from the school governors and set that out fully. The FAS decision not to release the Robson Rhodes report on Highcliffe or any other school was based on counsel's opinion about the nature of the advice that the FAS received.
I now turn to the general issues of current funding that the hon. Gentleman raised at the beginning of his speech. The Government have set out absolutely clearly by law that recurrent funding per pupil is guaranteed for all ex-grant-maintained schools and Dorset is under the same requirement as anywhere else. Beyond that baseline which is guaranteed by law, Dorset will take its own decisions about specific grants and the standards fund. It is instructive to look at the decisions that Dorset has to take. I understand that the provisional budget that Dorset is currently considering has allocated a 4.7 per cent. increase to education in contrast to the 7.3 per cent. increase that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment allocated for that purpose.
As the hon. Gentleman will know, Dorset county council comprises 21 Liberal Democrats, 15 Conservatives, five Labour councillors and one independent councillor and is under no overall control. It is governed by an interesting alliance of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives.

Mr. Chope: I assure the Minister that the Conservatives are not involved in running Dorset county council. If they were, the position would be very different.

Mr. Clarke: Given the current state of the Liberal Democrats, I am always suspicious about with whom they form alliances. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for maligning his colleagues in that way.
Dorset county council is considering whether to opt for a 6 or 11.2 per cent. increase in council tax. The area cost adjustment factors that the hon. Gentleman mentioned will no doubt come into that consideration although, as the hon. Gentleman will recall, the area cost adjustment was invented by the Government of whom he was a member.
As in all local authorities, there are arguments about the merits of the budget-setting period. I regard the hon. Gentleman's story about the possible £40,000 cut affecting Highcliffe in the same spirit as the letter from Dr. Howard about his school—as part of the general blitz of material that occurs in the budget-raising process. All hon. Members will be familiar with the issues that surround that process. We shall just have to see what happens.
I very much hope that Dorset county council will allocate significant resources to education and that, given its success, Highcliffe will get the resources that it deserves. However, a speculative £40,000 cut in the middle of the budget-setting process is not a basis for making firm statements in the House; it should be regarded simply as one of the options that is floating around.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government have said that transitional funding will continue for costs that the FAS would have met in such circumstances. I appreciate the chance that the hon. Gentleman has given me to set out the way in which the issues have been addressed in respect of Highcliffe and elsewhere.
Finally, I wish to emphasise one fundamental political point. We attach immense importance to a smooth transition between ex-grant-maintained schools and local education authorities. Many issues of history, ideology, circumstance, jealousy and so on have been floating around. Everywhere I go I ask the heads of ex-grant-maintained schools about arrangements with the LEA. I ask LEAs the same question and in general, with one or two exceptions—one of the hon. Gentleman's neighbouring authorities may be one—the response has been extremely positive and the Government very much hope that it will continue to be.

Electricity Industry Regulator

Siobhain McDonagh: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is important to a number of my constituents and, I hope, to the House. As this is my first Adjournment debate, I should like to thank the officers of the Speaker's Office and the Table Office for their assistance.
Hon. Members could be forgiven for having thought, when they saw the title of the debate, that we would be in for half an hour of worthy but dull academic dispute about pricing mechanisms, double recoveries and distribution price controls. Although I must warn the House that such terms will feature in my speech, they are not what the debate is about in essence. Rather, it is about some of my elderly constituents who are trying to heat their homes; the lengths to which the provider—London Electricity—has gone to thwart them; and the inability of the regulator to do much about it.
To explain the background, I have to give a brief chronology of events. The affair has been going on for more than two years, so my explanation will become quite complicated, but I shall distil the key events so as to describe them as briefly as possible. I have provided my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry with a much fuller background briefing.
In my constituency, there is a small housing charity called Mitcham Garden Village, which is a lovely development of 86 dwellings, comprising flats and maisonettes, reserved for elderly Mitcham residents. It is owned by Mitcham Garden Village trust, which is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is neither an old people's home nor a sheltered housing development.
The houses and flats were built in the 1920s and have no fixed heating other than one gas fire in the living room, as was standard in that period. As I am sure the House knows, such poor heating would not easily be tolerated in this day and age. That is why, when the opportunity came for the residents to install off-peak electrical space heaters, partly through grants provided by the local council, they took the chance to get some decent heating at last.
Now comes the pivotal point: every single resident of Mitcham Garden Village is an individual customer of London Electricity, receiving personalised bills and being entirely responsible for his or her own account. As the residents are elderly—the average age is between 75 and 80—the trust undertook to co-ordinate their applications to London Electricity to get the new heaters connected up to the mains.
To cut a long story short, London Electricity told the trust that the existing network could not support the new load and that, to connect up the heaters, the company would have to build a new substation and carry out related upgrading works. The company quoted various prices, ranging from £28,000 to £75,000, for which, to this day, it says the trust is liable. "Why are we liable?" the trustees asked, "We are not the customer. It is the 86 individual residents, each of whom is a registered customer of London Electricity, who want the electricity, not the trustees."
If 86 residents of Acacia avenue required individual modest load increases, one would not expect London Electricity to roll up the cost and try to bill the whole

street for a new substation. Such costs are provided for in the five-yearly price review, when the utilities are given hundreds of millions of pounds to carry out such upgrading. To try to charge residents for the same work is clearly a double recovery.
The trust submitted a complaint to the regulator—the Office of Electricity Regulation—but Offer replied, naturally enough, that the trust was not the customer and that the regulator could only settle a dispute between an individual customer and London Electricity. However, London Electricity maintained that the trust was the customer. At that point, the trust contacted me and asked for my help. In February last year, I wrote to hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry asking for his advice. He replied on 4 March, saying:
The problem here is that it is not Mitcham Garden Village who is the customer of the company".
That left London Electricity completely isolated: the trust said, "We are not your customer," the residents said, "The trust is not your customer," the regulator said, "The trust is not your customer," and the Minister of State himself said, "The trust is not your customer." Yet London Electricity continued to dispute that fact, and I have to tell the House that it still continues to do so.
In his letter of 4 March, my hon. Friend the Minister made an excellent suggestion, saying:
Perhaps the Secretary of Mitcham Garden Village might be able to co-ordinate an arrangement, whereby a small sample of the village residents, (say one or two), seek a quote from London Electricity, as this would clarify the picture on whether it was determinable and what the Director General's determination might be. I hope this is helpful
Indeed it was, for that was exactly what was happening: one resident, Mrs. Dolly Elnaugh—who desperately wanted to attend today's debate, but who, quite suddenly, had to be taken into hospital—had embarked on exactly that course of action. Needless to say, she got very short shrift from London Electricity, which refused to connect her until the trust paid for all the upgrading work, even though she was only one customer making an application for one set of heaters. Indeed in its evidence to Offer, London Electricity called Mrs. Elnaugh's inquiry—which we must not forget is the course of action suggested by the Minister of State—
a contrivance designed to circumvent the consequences of the true situation.
Having got nowhere, Mrs. Elnaugh complained to Offer. In its determination on her case, Offer ruled again that Mitcham Garden Village was not the customer—a fact already grasped by everyone from the Minister of State down, except, of course, London Electricity—and stated that London Electricity had a duty to supply Mrs. Elnaugh,
cognisant of its normal charging principles".
In subsequent letters, the regulator stated that it thought that its determination would mean that Mrs. Elnaugh would be connected up at no cost to herself.
After many tortuous months, Mrs. Elnaugh was eventually connected up, but she was landed with a bill for £500 plus VAT for the privilege. "How could it possibly cost £500?" we asked. "Because," replied London Electricity, "that is about one eightieth of the amount needed to upgrade the network". "But you haven't upgraded the network," we replied, "Mrs. Elnaugh is plugged in to the existing infrastructure." London


Electricity had previously said that it could connect around a dozen residents without having to upgrade, so why on earth was the company charging for work that it had not done? Furthermore, when the next resident asked to be connected—this took place a matter of days ago—London Electricity simply refused, saying that she would have to pay £500 up front.
As I said, this is my first Adjournment debate, and I suspected that, once word got out, there would be a flurry of activity; I was not to be disappointed. On Monday, I received several faxes from London Electricity which, sadly, represent a mere reiteration of the company's case. Of the key points sent, the first states that:
London Electricity has no desire to leave the residents of Mitcham Garden Village unable to use their new night storage heaters".
Well, I am glad that we agree on something. However, the company goes on to say:
The residents now have efficient heating installed in their homes which, because the full implications of the scheme were not checked at the outset, they are unable to make use of.
That is simply not true: Mitcham Garden Village approached London Electricity in February 1997, almost two years ago and almost six months before the first heater was installed.
The real reason for the heaters not being connected is London Electricity's bizarre refusal to accept that the 86 residents, who are all registered customers of London Electricity, who all receive individual bills from London Electricity, and who are all personally responsible for settling their accounts with London Electricity, are in fact customers of London Electricity. That is despite the determination of Offer and the judgment of the Minister. In its fax to me this week, London Electricity called the decision to settle the matter with reference to individual customers "unreasonable".
Only one party has behaved unreasonably during this prolonged period. I have been shocked by the high-handed and arrogant way in which London Electricity has conducted itself. My constituents have spoken to me of the distress caused to them by London Electricity's insensitivity. I have no idea whether Mrs. Elnaugh is in hospital for other reasons, but I am concerned that her distress about this matter may have something to do with it.
When I spoke to a senior manager at the company in an attempt to reach some compromise, I too experienced London Electricity's unique brand of customer care. I pointed out that these were elderly people, we were in the middle of winter and there was a flu epidemic on. I was told, "It is not that cold and anyway you don't get the flu from cold weather." I had not realised that one of the benefits of privatisation was that London Electricity now dispenses weather forecasts and medical advice. Would that it dispensed electricity as readily.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, these are the facts of the case. I believe that my constituents have been the victims of a wrong decision by London Electricity, but the case also raises some important issues surrounding the effectiveness of Offer in protecting vulnerable customers. I fully accept that my hon. Friend the Minister is not responsible for the behaviour of London Electricity and I do not expect him to judge the merits of the dispute here and now. None

the less, I should like my hon. Friend to answer five key questions, of which I have given him prior notice. I hope that I will get them in within the time available.
First, in this instance, a private utility has acted with an arrogant disregard for the needs of my elderly constituents which deserves to be exposed on the Floor of the House. Furthermore, London Electricity continues to dispute my hon. Friend the Minister's clearly expressed view that
it is not Mitcham Garden Village who is the customer of the company.
I wonder how my hon. Friend feels about his judgment being so clearly rejected by London Electricity.
Secondly, the case raises important questions about the effectiveness of Offer. There is no doubt that Offer has consistently ruled against London Electricity and has met with repeated obfuscation when trying to uncover simple facts. What is an elderly customer to do when a privatised utility simply ignores the determination of the regulator?
Thirdly, the matter raises further important issues with regard to the future regulatory framework. The response to the consultation on the Government's Green Paper, "A fair deal for consumers", clearly states:
Economic regulation does not occur in a vacuum. Ensuring that the services provided by these industries are available to all members of society, including the most vulnerable, on fair terms, is important to the Government's wider objectives of creating a fairer society.
The terms offered to my constituents are by no stretch of the imagination fair. How can we regulate the fair treatment of elderly customers?
Fourthly, the response to the consultation further states:
It will also be important to ensure that the needs of disadvantaged customers—many of whom lack the resources, knowledge or power to argue their cases directly with regulators, companies and the Government—are fully understood.
I am aware of the huge legislative agenda that the Government are steering through the House and that we have had to prioritise our manifesto commitments on constitutional reform, modernisation of the national health service and improving the welfare system, but in the absence of a new utilities Bill, how can we guarantee that the needs of disadvantaged customers are fully understood?
Lastly, as I said at the outset, this is not an academic dispute about pricing mechanisms, double recovery and distribution price control. It is about old and vulnerable people who lack adequate heating. I am extremely proud that the Government have cut VAT on domestic fuel and helped pensioners greatly with their winter fuel bills. The residents of Mitcham Garden Village are not installing swimming pools, power showers or electronically controlled garages that would require massive amounts of new electricity supply. They simply want to connect up the small heaters that they need to warm their homes.
In the two years that the dispute has been dragging on, with still no end in sight, London Electricity has received £232 million to spend on upgrading its infrastructure. In the next financial year, it will spend an additional £116 million. Yet it still wants to charge individual pensioners £500 plus VAT for the privilege of consuming more electricity. There is no competition in domestic electricity distribution so my constituents have no choice. They must pay up or go cold.
I intended to finish my speech here, but just under an hour ago my office was faxed a letter from Offer. I have not had the chance to study it in depth, but it appears that


Offer has once again ruled against London Electricity and told it that it should not charge Mrs. Elnaugh. I await the response of London Electricity with keen interest.

The Minister for Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle): It is traditional in the House to compliment the hon. Member who wins an Adjournment debate on drawing a matter to the attention of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) said that this was her first Adjournment debate. Judging by the quality of her speech, which demonstrated what an Adjournment debate should be, I suspect that there will be a capacity crowd the next time she wins one.
I deeply regret that my hon. Friend has been forced to bring the matter before the House, but her diligence and tenacity in following the case through and—I do not know where she gets it from—the sense of humour with which she has presented her forceful case this afternoon is remarkable.
We are judged as Members of Parliament, Ministers and as a Government by the effects of our decisions—taken in this Chamber about laws and budgets—on our constituents' lives. It is when I get home to my constituency in Leeds and attend my advice surgery that I find out the effects of our decisions and learn what is really going on. My hon. Friend has listened to a constituency case, followed it through and highlighted what I deeply believe is a breakdown in the system. If elderly people cannot get basic justice in simply obtaining a supply of electricity, we need to sharpen up the act somewhere.
My hon. Friend mentioned that her constituent, Mrs. Elnaugh, had been taken into hospital. We wish her a speedy recovery. I hope that this carry-on has not contributed to her distress.
I understand that a series of determinations has been made in this episode. In October 1997, the housing trust asked Offer to reduce the cost of the upgrade. In December 1997, Offer ruled that it could not determine because the housing trust was not the customer. As my hon. Friend kindly acknowledged, I made the suggestion that Mrs. Elnaugh ask Offer to determine on her behalf and that of the other residents who exactly the customer was. On 26 November, Offer determined that Mrs. Elnaugh was indeed the customer.
Offer was asked to make three separate determinations. I emphasise that Offer has strong powers to make determinations once it has been formally asked to do so. That seems to be part of the problem. One has to package the request for determination and then Offer will take a decision. Offer's decisions are then subject only to a judicial review.
In this case, Offer was asked to make three separate determinations. In December 1997, it determined that the application for determination by the housing trust could not be accepted because the trust was not the customer requiring the supply. In November 1998, it determined that London Electricity had a duty to supply Mrs. Elnaugh and to ensure that its system was capable of supporting that demand. I can confirm that, no doubt as a result of my hon. Friend's pressure as a campaigning constituency Member of Parliament, Offer has today ruled that Mrs. Elnaugh should not have to pay anything for the

upgrade of her electricity connection. I regret that it has taken so long for Offer to arrive at that decision. I hope that London Electricity will now heed the regulator's determination in respect of the other customers in Mitcham Garden Village who are in the same position as Mrs. Elnaugh.
This has been a long-running case and, in defence of Offer, I say only that Offer has guidelines for how long it should take to make a determination and each of those three determinations was made within the target time of six months. We may have to consider the process whereby determinations get to Offer in the first place and the ducks and drakes that companies may be able to play to avoid getting to a determination. In the light of my hon. Friend's comments, I shall examine that process in detail to find out if it can be sharpened up. I hope that this sorry business will now end and that the decisions satisfy the residents of Mitcham Garden Village.
Many complaints are resolved without the need to refer to the formal, statutory powers of determination of the Director General of Electricity Supply. Since 1990, only 181 determinations have been issued, and 25 of those concerned connection charges. The vast majority of complaints can be handled without getting as far as Offer, but I regret that, if it had not been for my hon. Friend's tenacity, this case might still have been unresolved. Once a determination has been made, action can be taken. I hope that the determination in this case will be noted by London Electricity and acted on.
My hon. Friend mentioned our White Paper, "A Fair Deal for Consumers". In opposition, we said that we would encourage competition where possible but would have regulation where it is necessary to ensure that market failure does not mean that people get left out of the system. Regulations were clearly stacked in shareholders' favour, and we want to set up a framework of regulation that has the consumer at its heart. We consulted widely and published our White Paper. We are now working to fulfil our commitment to put consumers first. We shall introduce a package of measures as soon as parliamentary time permits.
There will be a new primary duty on regulators to protect and promote customers' interests. There will be new independent statutory consumer councils with powers to deal with complaints that are not resolved by the utility companies. Those councils will have a strong role and people will know where to take their complaints. There will be financial penalties on companies for breaching overall and individual customer service standards.
The regulators' social duties and obligations will be extended to cover low-income and vulnerable consumers, including the chronically sick, the disabled, pensioners and rural customers. Ministers will have powers to issue statutory guidance to regulators on social and environmental matters that are absent from regulation at present.
In the meantime, until we can introduce our legislation, the new energy regulator, who has combined duties for gas and electricity and who took up his post just weeks ago, is reconsidering a social action plan, concentrating on providing solutions to the problems of those who suffer from fuel poverty. It is worth reminding ourselves that households on the lowest incomes spend, as a proportion of their total expenditure, three and half times more on fuel than other households do. The poorest pay the most.


Expenditure on electricity alone, as a proportion of total expenditure, is five times as high for low-income customers as it is for wealthier ones.
Competition and regulation in energy policy should be measured against the test of whether they work for the poorest and most vulnerable. My hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that, sadly, the system has failed in the case of her constituents. Perhaps recalling that distressing saga will encourage us not only to introduce legislation but to ensure that practice changes in future. The regulator's determination has been made and I repeat that I hope that London Electricity will take heed of it in respect of other customers. The case should be closed and those customers should not have to pay for that upgrade.
We shall work towards introducing legislation for a system of regulation that puts the consumer at its heart, gives new powers to the regulators and extends the reach of regulation to ensure that the poor and vulnerable are not paying the highest price.
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the matter. The way in which she has followed the case in all its detail and her hard work and diligence are a testimony to how Adjournment debates should take individual constituents' cases and highlight faults in the system's structures and processes. I learned a great deal from my hon. Friend's enjoyable speech. I listened to her carefully and I shall ask my officials to examine the background of the case in greater detail to find out what we can do between now and the introduction of legislation to ensure that no one else experiences the same problems. I would not mind my hon. Friend being my MP if she championed my cause so well.

Train Operating Companies

Mr. Paul Burstow: I hope that I shall pass the Minister for Energy and Industry's test for the standard of Adjournment debates by raising an issue of genuine concern brought to my attention by my constituents.
I should start by declaring an interest. I am a daily commuter from Cheam station in my constituency. That experience and the many letters that I receive from constituents led me to seek this debate.
The Minister will know of my interest in rolling stock replacement and slam-door mark I trains. Under existing franchise agreements, the number of mark I trains is forecast to fall from 2,300 to about 1,300 by the end of 2000. However, I understand that 1,031 of those trains have been leased to Connex SouthCentral and South West Trains and will continue to operate because neither company has a franchise commitment to replace those vehicles. Both companies' franchise ends in 2003, and I want to ask a number of questions.
I was a member of the London fire and civil defence authority at the time of the Clapham rail disaster. I remember the trauma, not only of the people involved in the accident, but of the firefighters who went to the rescue. Thirty-five people lost their lives in the disaster and many more were seriously injured.
The Hidden report that was produced as a result of the accident pinpointed the fact that mark I coaches afforded passengers far less protection in a collision than modern carriages. No safeguards are built into the mark I trains to prevent the underframe of one vehicle riding over that of another in a collision. That was known in 1988 and it was known when the first round of franchises were let. I find it extraordinary that no effort was made to secure the replacement or modification of those unsafe coaches during the first round of franchising.
The Hidden report says:
In the light of the accident BR has set in motion a programme of further research into the Mark I coach which is expected to cost £1 million and to be completed by April 1991.
I emphasise that date-1991. The report continued:
The future of safety and public confidence demand that such research is fully and expeditiously carried out.
So what happened?
In its evidence to an inquiry by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs in July last year, the Health and Safety Executive said that the issue of mark I safety "fell between two stools" and that it had passed it by. It is hardly surprising that the franchising director did not address the safety issue—the way in which his office was established by the previous Government requires him to address service levels and value for money, not safety. In other words, the Health and Safety Executive dropped the ball on mark I safety in the mid-1990s.
It was not until May 1998, 10 years after Clapham, that the HSE finally began to consult the rail industry about modifying mark I trains by 2003. The result of that consultation and the HSE's recommendations are currently with the Minister, who told me in the House only two weeks ago that she hoped to make an


announcement shortly. How long will we have to wait for that announcement? When will the necessary regulations to bring in the HSE's recommendations be laid before Parliament?
I hold no brief for Connex SouthCentral. Indeed, I hope to show that when it comes to performance, I am certainly no friend of the company and have a very low regard for its delivery of services to many of its customers.
In written answers to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker), Ministers have made it clear that the responsibility for mark I rolling stock rests with the train operators. There is a very real fear that the inaction on the part of the Government—or, perhaps to a greater extent, the franchising director—could result in the residual mark I fleet continuing to operate right up until the end of the franchises held by Connex SouthCentral and SouthWest Trains in 2003.
The mark I would then be grounded—on 2 January 2003—and the incoming operator would face a severe shortage of trains. Again, it will be the poor commuter who pays: four more years of uncomfortable and unsatisfactory journeys in coaches of questionable safety, and the prospect of chaos as the new operator—or Connex, if it survives the franchising round—seeks to deliver a timetable without sufficient trains to do so. I hope that the Minister will tell us how that is to be avoided, and what steps are being taken by the franchising director and the Government to ensure that it does not happen.
In answer to several questions, Ministers have told me that the rolling stock leasing companies have to comply with health and safety requirements, but will the Minister assure us today that the value-for-money obligations placed on the franchising director will not be allowed to get in the way of rail safety? Will she also explain why the franchising director has not sought proposals from the rolling stock companies to secure modification to avoid the grounding of mark I trains in 2003?
One question that I have not yet had the opportunity to ask, but to which I hope the Minister can reply today, is whether the franchising director might be requested to consider calling a meeting with the rolling stock companies to discuss mark I trains, because options and solutions are being developed by the leasing companies. It is worth bearing in mind, as did the Select Committee, the proposal that the Classic could effectively modernise mark I trains in such a way as to meet all the HSE's concerns.
I want to raise two other issues relating to the performance of the train operating companies, especially Connex SouthCentral. The first concerns the time it has taken to secure the much-needed and long-overdue upgrading of Sutton station in my constituency. The fragmentation of the rail industry as a result of privatisation has transformed what should have been a straightforward investment decision into a saga of delay and buck passing among different parts of the present rail industry.
I shall not rehearse the history of this sorry saga, but it is now five years since the project was conceived, and works have still not started. Indeed, my local authority—I checked this only today—has over the past two months rung, faxed and written to Connex SouthCentral, seeking information as to whether it intends to proceed with the project, but it has not even had the courtesy of sending an

acknowledgement. That is unacceptable customer care, and it is unacceptable practice between potential partners who are meant to be working together to secure the investment.
The London borough of Sutton would have been putting a substantial sum of money into the project, but all it gets—and all that I have got—from the company is a vague undertaking that work might start this year. We need to know exactly when this year, because the same thing was said in 1998. I hope that, even if not today, the Minister might pursue the company and at least get from it a letter with a clear indication of a start date.
I recently called a meeting of business leaders in Sutton so that they could put their concerns about local rail services to Connex SouthCentral management. Connex failed to turn up. To be fair, I have at last received a fairly fulsome apology for its failure to attend, but it is still not moving on the issues of substance.
A wide range of issues was raised by the businesses represented at that meeting in connection with Connex's performance. High on the list of concerns, for town-centre retailers and for some of the larger employers in Sutton such as Reed Business Publishing, was the appalling condition of Sutton station. The business view is that the station is a real drag on the local economy. Reed Business Publishing told me that it does not invite guests to come to its premises by train because the appearance of the station is such that it conveys the wrong image of the company. It is appalling that a publisher of journals about the railway industry feels that the industry has let it down so badly.
I raised the matter with the Minister about a year ago when she visited the Roundshaw estate in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). She was helpful and sympathetic, and I hope that she will be able to put a bomb under Connex to get it to start engaging with their partners so that the money can be unlocked and invested in the railway infrastructure to improve the services to my constituents.
Secondly, I urge the Minister to examine how the performance standards under which Connex and other train operating companies operate can be tightened. I know that this has been the subject of discussions with the train operating companies, but I hope that the Minister will say a little more about it today. Again, my meeting with local business leaders underlined my concerns about the inadequacy of those standards and the inadequacy of the services being provided.
Reed Business Publishing, Crown Agents and some of the larger retailers in the town carried out a survey among their staff as part of their preparation for the meeting. They found a consistent pattern of complaint and concerns, which can be summed up as follows: short trains resulting in chronic overcrowding, late-running services and filthy conditions.
During the peak periods, someone catching a train into Victoria or London Bridge from my constituency often ends up standing for more than half an hour, shoulder to shoulder with fellow passengers. The term "cattle truck" is one with which I am familiar, because I see the phenomenon every day. I am fortunate in that I get on the train at Cheam and there are still one or two seats left, but by the time the train gets to Sutton, that is not the case. Many people have to stand every day, but are paying


well over £1,000 a year for a season ticket which they believe should entitle them to a little more comfort on their journey to work.
In answer to a question that I posed to the Minister in writing last year, she drew my attention to the franchising director's quality performance figures, which suggested that improvements had been made by Connex in that quarter. However, on closer examination, it becomes clear that the basis on which they are compiled is far from satisfactory. For example, in the case of commuter services like those from my constituency, a train is officially overcrowded only if people have to stand for journeys of more than 20 minutes. For a train to be officially running on time, it has to arrive at its destination within five minutes of its timetabled arrival for short journeys and within 10 minutes for long journeys. However, that measurement applies only to the final destination, not the intermediate stops. As a consequence, many of my constituents travelling to Clapham Junction to make connections to go elsewhere find themselves being let down by the service time and again.
Finally, the penalty regime for running short trains is not sufficient. It does not send a strong enough signal to the companies that the franchising director regards it as an important issue. As a result, evening after evening, trains run short and are thus overcrowded. That is partly because the fines are small, compared with the fines and penalties that apply to late-running trains and the cancellation of trains. I do not propose that those fines should be lessened, but we must find ways of sending clear signals to train operating companies that short trains are unacceptable.
The daily experience of commuters in my constituency—I am sure that this goes for the constituents of all hon. Members—tells them that services are not improving. That perception is an important measure of the way in which those companies are delivering.
The January issue of Which? confirms that a survey of rail users found that three quarters of commuters had been late at least once in the previous week, and that four out of 10 commuters had to stand at least once a week. Not all those failings can be attributed to external factors or lack of long-term investment. Many are the result of bad management or management in the interests of the company, rather than the customer.
I hope that the Minister can today give some reassurance to my constituents on rolling stock, not just for the immediate future, but into 2003. I hope, too, that she will give us some comfort that action will at last be taken with regard to Sutton station, and that the shadow strategic rail authority, which I welcome as a proposal, will have teeth and the ability to deliver where privatisation has so manifestly failed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing the debate, which provides an opportunity for the House to discuss rolling stock replacement and train operating company performance—two fundamental components in the provision of a proper railway service for the passenger. It is the Government's clear commitment to ensure that such a service is delivered.
I shall begin by affording the hon. Gentleman the comfort that he requested with regard to Sutton station. I have made a note of the failure of Connex SouthCentral to respond to his inquiries, and I shall forward his concerns to the company. I have been informed by Railtrack that refurbishment work at Sutton station will begin on site soon and is expected to be completed by April. The work is structural and will consist of repairs to platforms, refurbishing the underside of the bridge, repointing platform edges, re-roofing and painting the steelwork on the canopy of platform 4. I hope that on that issue, the hon. Gentleman feels somewhat comforted.
As I said, rolling stock replacement and train operating company performance are essential for the provision of a high quality railway service for the passenger. We are therefore keen for substantial investment to be made in rolling stock, and welcome the recent orders that have been announced. Since franchising began, a total of about 1,400 new vehicles have been ordered at a cost of £1.25 billion. Train operators are committed to ordering a further 800 vehicles at a cost of approximately £1 billion. In addition, some 4,000 vehicles have been, or are being, refurbished.
New rolling stock orders not only provide more reliable services and better facilities for passengers, but create extra jobs in the rail industry. We want to ensure that investment in rolling stock is a continuous process, and that our great train manufacturing centres will never again suffer an investment hiatus, such as the four-year drought in orders created by rail privatisation. The most recent order for 352 new vehicles for Virgin CrossCountryworth £400 million—witnessed the entry into the UK passenger market of a new rolling stock company and a new manufacturer.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the safety of mark I rolling stock. It is true that mark I rolling stock, although not inherently unsafe, is not as crashworthy as more modern types of rolling stock. In certain types of train accident, one carriage can ride up over the carriage in front.
The Health and Safety Executive consulted widely last year on proposals that would require all mark I rolling stock to be withdrawn by 1 January 2003, unless it has been rebodied or modified to improve its crashworthiness. If the rolling stock were modified, it could remain in service only until 2007. On 22 December, the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission wrote to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister with formal recommendations from the commission that Ministers make regulations on the issue.
The hon. Gentleman asked when the Government intended to announce their views. We are considering the HSC's recommendations and expect to be able to make an announcement shortly. However, before regulations can be made, the HSC must satisfy itself that the mechanism that it is proposing to modify mark I stock to make it safer in a crash actually works. The mechanism, which involves fitting a cup and cone to each carriage to prevent overriding, has successfully completed one test, but a further test is required, which it is intended to carry out on 17 February.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the impact of what he perceived as the shortness of franchising on the Health and Safety Commission's requirements. Train operators are required by their


franchise agreements to ensure that they have the necessary rolling stock to enable them to meet their franchise commitments and any HSC requirements. Under the HSC's proposed regulations, Connex SouthCentral as well as Connex South Eastern and South West Trains would be required to replace or modify a significant number of mark I rolling stock.
It would be for the individual train operating companies to make the necessary arrangements with the rolling stock companies. The rolling stock market is a competitive one, as evidenced by the new entrants that I mentioned earlier, and there is sufficient manufacturing capacity to replace, modify or rebody mark I rolling stock by the proposed HSC deadlines.

Mr. Burstow: I shall be brief, in view of the time. I am interested to learn that the HSC needs to carry out further tests, and that those will take place in February. In the Hidden report back in 1989, it was recommended that British Rail should undertake research on that matter by 1991. Was that research ever completed and have its findings informed the HSC's recommendations? If the research was not completed, that raises questions about what was done during the 10 years since the inquiry. I hope that the Minister can answer those questions today, or perhaps she will write to me.

Ms Jackson: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman about that.
On the performance of train operators, I trust that all hon. Members are aware of the Government's concerns about the performance of the rail industry. We want more people to travel by train, but trains that are constantly late or unreliable, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, do little to encourage people to leave their cars at home. We expect train operators to run services that are consistently punctual and reliable, and we expect Railtrack to meet its obligations to passengers, freight customers and taxpayers to maintain and develop the rail network in a way that offers proper value for money.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the welcome that he gave to the Government's proposals for the institution of a strategic rail authority. As I am sure he knows, it is the strategic nature of the investment, quite apart from the level of it, that is vital to improve our railway system.
My right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister of Transport and I met franchisees and Railtrack on 26 November to discuss our concerns about continuing poor performance. We made it clear that the culture of blame must stop, and that the various parts of the industry must pull together to improve the service to its users. At that meeting, an action plan was agreed to tackle performance problems across our railway. The measures agreed included 800 new train drivers, 500 new vehicles, a joint hit squad to identify and tackle the worst 50 black spots, and a new national passenger survey to find out what passengers think about their rail services and to help measure performance across the network. The action plan is only the first step in delivering short-term improvements to passengers. We expect year-on-year improvements, starting over the next 12 months, and I am pleased to say that the rail industry has committed itself to that.
To build on the success of November's meeting, a larger rail summit will be held on 25 February to identify those matters requiring longer term improvement across the network. A wide range of organisations have been invited to attend the summit, including representatives of passenger and freight train operators, Railtrack, rolling stock companies, local government and the rail users consultative committees. The RUCCs have been invited to bring along to that summit rail-using members of the public who are not necessarily members of their committees.
At the February summit, we shall look to the rail industry to demonstrate how it proposes to deliver the year-on-year improvements that were agreed in November. We have been at pains to point out—it is worth doing so again—that this Government will not tolerate poor performance by train operators. It is in all our interests—those of the industry and of the Government but, above all, of the passengers—that performance targets should be met.
We have also made it clear that train operators' performance will be a key criterion when it comes to franchise renewal. Those who perform well will find that we are constructive partners. We are willing to renegotiate franchises, including franchise extensions, where it offers benefits to passengers and good value for money to the taxpayer. Again, those who perform badly will not have a long-term future in the industry.

Mr. Burstow: I entirely agree that we should secure the best value for money and the most effective services possible. I hope that the establishment of a dialogue between Connex SouthCentral and South West Trains and the marketplace for the supply of rolling stock will be explored at the summit, if not before. From discussions that I have had with various people, there seems to be a serious logjam. I hope that the Minister, or the franchising director or the strategic rail authority can act as an honest broker to get matters moving, so that we may be certain that, by 2003, mark I trains will be either replaced or modified.

Ms Jackson: I am somewhat bemused by the word logjam. As I have said, there are new entrants in the rolling stock market, and there is no shortage of capacity in the rail manufacturing industry. It will be possible to meet all the Health and Safety Commission's requirements. I shall of course bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of representatives of the rolling stock and train operating companies at the summit that we propose to hold on 25 February.
Everyone acknowledges that not all the challenges facing the rail industry can be solved overnight. We are under no illusion about the scale of the challenge that we have set ourselves. Passengers want an efficient, reliable and reasonably priced rail service. We are determined to work with the rail industry to ensure that passengers get what they want. The next step in that process will be the February summit.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

National Assembly

Mr. Peter Luff: What plans he is making to hold regular meetings with the First Secretary of the National Assembly; and how frequent he expects those meetings to be. [66268]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Regular meetings will be held to ensure that the Secretary of State for Wales is fully aware of the views of the National Assembly for Wales on relevant issues. For the first few weeks following the establishment of the Assembly, I shall have to talk to myself quite a lot. I have made it clear that that period will be brief, essentially to smooth the process of transition—in weeks rather than months. Thereafter, I shall certainly work hard to achieve a partnership for Wales with the new Secretary of State.

Mr. Luff: It will be very convenient for the Secretary of State to be able to talk to himself in the mirror when he is shaving in the mornings, but does he agree that, in the long run, there will be a considerable inconsistency between the First Secretary and the Welsh Secretary if the posts are filled by the same individual? The Welsh Secretary would be bound by collective responsibility, unlike the First Secretary, which would make a mockery of devolution.

Mr. Michael: It is clear that the hon. Gentleman, whose interest in devolution is new and welcome, did not listen to my answer. Precisely for that reason, I have made it clear that I intend to step down as Secretary of State for Wales, after a brief transitional period, to concentrate on my work as First Secretary. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that that is the right thing to do.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I accept the theoretical point that meetings arranged with oneself are terribly easy to set up—it can be done in a nanosecond—but does my right hon. Friend accept that meetings between two people might be of greater value? Does he also accept that the most significant point behind that question is how Welsh Office civil servants—the Westminster and Whitehall hook-up civil servants, who will serve the on-going functions of the Secretary of State; those who will serve the democratic Assembly; and those who will serve the First Secretary and the Cabinet of the Assembly—will be retrained, or given a new culture, according to which of those functions they will carry out?

Mr. Michael: I find that, when listening to one's first thoughts, it is sometimes wise to ponder a little rather than to think for only a nanosecond before acting or speaking. I have made it clear that, as soon as the functions are in place, it would be sensible, and right, that the First Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales should be different people, so that they can fulfil those different functions. That is my intention.
I am pleased with the positive response of civil servants to the challenge posed by the Assembly. They understand the new nature of the relationship between them and Members of the Assembly, as compared with the current arm's-length relationship with Members of Parliament. The civil service will be doing things in a new way that will be exciting for Members of the new Assembly and for the officials who work for it. The distinction between the new responsibilities and responsibilities to the Secretary of State and this Parliament is well understood.

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: Does the Secretary of State acknowledge that the long-drawn-out leadership battle between him and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), which is now coming to the Floor of the House, is destroying the opportunity for proper debate on the real issues affecting people in Wales? When will that leadership battle end, so that we can get on to important policies such as health, education and economic development?

Mr. Michael: I regret the synthetic way in which the hon. Gentleman phrased his question. He well knows that it is the battle for leadership within the Labour party that is interesting. He also knows that the Labour party is delivering on promises made at the general election, and that it is the only party that is able to do that for the people of Wales. In the run-up to the arrival of the Assembly we will concentrate on building a strong economy in Wales, providing jobs for our young people, improving health, improving standards of education and creating safer communities. That is what our people want to hear from us.

Mr. John Smith: When my right hon. Friend engages in those very important and regular meetings with himself, will he remind himself of the valuable role played by Sully hospital, which is in my constituency and which serves my constituents and his very well, and has for many years? When the future of that hospital is considered by himself, will my right hon. Friend remember the important role that it plays?

Mr. Michael: I could hardly overlook the importance of Sully hospital, given that my hon. Friend is a consistent and long-standing advocate of it. Over the years, he and I have looked at the interests of both Sully hospital and Llandough hospital, which received a charter mark yesterday. I am sure that my hon. Friend will share my pleasure at the recognition of the work of the hospital staff. Certainly, I understand the high priority that he gives the future of Sully hospital.

Dr. Liam Fox: Leaving aside the presumptuousness, both personal and party, of the Secretary of State's initial answer, may I ask why—in the same Government—it is considered unacceptable for the two jobs to overlap in Scotland, but acceptable for them to do so in Wales? What is the essential difference between the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly that makes that so?

Mr. Michael: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would know the answer to that. I believe that he has many jobs. I believe that, in the Opposition, he is supposed to be Mr. Scotland as well as Mr. Wales, Mr. Northern Ireland and goodness knows what else.
He should know full well that the nature of devolution in Scotland is different from that in Wales, and that the transition period—which will be short—needs to be managed carefully.
When I first went into local government in 1973, there was an 11-month shadow period before responsibilities were taken over. The Assembly will take over its responsibilities very soon after the election. It will be important to manage that transition, in order to ensure that the Assembly starts off effectively and on a sound footing.

Dr. Fox: I am sure that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) will be grateful for his right hon. Friend's confused boost to his own campaign.
Surely my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) is entirely right: it is not possible for someone both to be the independently minded leader of a Welsh Assembly and to subscribe to collective responsibility in Cabinet. Those roles are mutually exclusive, and should be separated from the outset, as they have been in Scotland. Would not the Secretary of State do a great service to the whole concept of devolution in Wales by making that clear from the start?

Mr. Michael: The only confusion is in the hon. Gentleman's mind. I have made it clear that it is for precisely those reasons that I intend to stand down from my Cabinet role once the Assembly is in place, in a short rather than a long time. I have been saying that for two and a half months; the hon. Gentleman is obviously deaf.
The role of Secretary of State for Wales needs careful consideration. It changed dramatically in May 1979—[HON. MEMBERS: "1979?"]—when a Labour Government began to breathe life and vigour into it. That contrasts with the activities of the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who sent moneys and resources back from Wales to the Treasury.

Bus Services

Mr. Chris Ruane: If he will make a statement on the provision for urban and rural bus services in Wales for 1999–2000. [66270]

Ms Jackie Lawrence: If he will make a statement on the provision for urban and rural bus services in Wales for 1999–2000. [66275]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): In future, that will become the responsibility of the Welsh Assembly. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has increased the budget for bus subsidy grants by over 120 per cent. to £5 million in 1999–2000. That is on top of the support provided by local authorities out of their own budgets, and represents a massive boost for bus services throughout Wales.

Mr. Ruane: Does my hon. Friend agree that £5 million investment—I use the word "investment" rather than the word "subsidy" advisedly—will have an economic as well as an environmental impact? The west ward of Rhyl, in my constituency, has the lowest car ownership in Wales. In 14 months' time, 600 jobs will be created six

miles away. If we do not have efficient, reliable, affordable public transport to convey my constituents to the business park, they will be denied jobs.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend has made his point effectively. Our new strategy to support public transport will have not just an environmental but a considerable economic advantage, not only to companies but to employees. That is in contrast to the shambles that we inherited from the Conservative Government, whose bus policy reminded me of the present shadow Cabinet: always behind the times, and consisting of a lot of old bangers falling apart.

Ms Lawrence: Is my hon. Friend aware that nearly all the 1,800 companies that currently receive bus fuel duty rebate use standard diesel fuel? In the interests of the environment in Wales and of oil refinery jobs in Milford Haven in my constituency, will he impress on the Chancellor of the Exchequer the importance of providing incentives for those companies to use ultra-low sulphur diesel?

Mr. Hain: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of the Chancellor. She always makes her case effectively on behalf of her constituents. I particularly commend Elf Oil in her constituency for the effective way in which it has promoted ultra-low sulphur diesel because that will help to green motoring throughout Wales and, indeed, Britain.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister and the Secretary of State have of late been trumpeting throughout Wales the fact that there will be free bus travel for pensioners if and when Labour takes control of the National Assembly for Wales. When I asked the Minister how much that would cost, he told me, in a written answer, that he did not know, but that it would come from local authorities' present budget. That is downright dishonest campaigning.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman is usually courteous and I find him almost always well informed on policies before the House. On that policy, he is completely misinformed. We are negotiating with the bus operators and with local authorities to achieve the best possible deal for pensioners in Wales, for the public purse and for bus services throughout Wales.
It is a radical and exciting policy. From this year, all pensioners in Wales will be able to travel for half fares throughout Wales; that is an achievement of the Labour Government. In the following two years, a Labour-controlled National Assembly for Wales will be able to move towards free fares for pensioners on buses throughout Wales. That will be welcomed by pensioners, many of whom are trapped at home and unable to get out because they do not have access to a car. The policy will be an enormous boost to their opportunities.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the Minister accept the continuing importance of ensuring an integrated system for bus, rail and other public transport? I acknowledge that the money will make a difference, but does he accept that it is still less than 1p per day per resident in Wales? In that context, will he accept


representations from those involved in the bus and rail industries to talk about how they would like the Welsh Office to help them to integrate their transport systems?

Mr. Hain: I chair the Wales transport advisory group, on which bus operators and others, including local authorities, are represented. Through that channel, which is unique to Wales, we have made much progress in achieving effective and coherent public transport policies for Wales. We have introduced many changes already, but I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.
For the first time, we have put £11 million into integrated transport packages throughout Wales. That was never done by the last Conservative Government, who turned their back on public transport in favour of a manic support for the private motor car. The policy will enable the hon. Gentleman's constituents and others to have real choice: to use the car if they wish, but to have available a high-quality choice of other transport if they want to use it.

Rights of Way

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: What percentage of rights of way in Wales he estimates will be free from obstruction on 1 January 2000; and what further steps he plans to take to ensure that 100 per cent. are free of obstructions.
[66271]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): Of the public rights of way that were surveyed between 1992 and 1997, 53 per cent. were free of obstruction at the end of 1997 and a further 24 per cent. were considered usable. The Countryside Council for Wales is funding programmes that are improving that by a further 1,500 km, or 4 per cent of the total, each year. In future, that matter will become the responsibility of the National Assembly for Wales.

Mr. Bennett: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that, as more than 18 million people in the United Kingdom enjoy walking, and many of them do that in Wales, it is important that the target set for the millennium of having all rights of way free of obstructions is met? What will be done in Wales to increase access to the countryside, which is important for tourism?

Mr. Jones: I agree that we should have an ambitious target, but I do not agree that it is worth keeping a target if it is not possible to meet it. The target of making rights of way free of all obstructions by 2000 is clearly not likely to be met. What is more, it is good policy not to have that as a target that we must meet, but rather as a continuing task. There will always be a need to invest in access to the countryside. The Countryside Council for Wales is investing almost £1 million in grant in aid to local authorities to improve access to the countryside. In addition to that, we are investing £300,000 over the next three years to develop national trails. I expect to be able to approve a proposal for Ffordd Glyndwr in the next few months, which will be a national trail running right through the heart of Wales.

National Assembly

Mr. James Gray: What is his Department's budget for promoting the elections for the National Assembly for Wales. [66272]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): Some £2 million will be spent on the information campaign for the National Assembly elections. I am sure that members of all parties will agree that it is important for people to be fully informed on the powers and responsibilities of the Assembly and to be encouraged to vote.

Mr. Gray: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Will he submit the budgets for the approval of the Neill Committee on Standards in Public Life? If he does not agree to do so, does he not risk falling foul of that committee in precisely the same way as he did over the misuse of public funds spent on behalf of the Labour party during the referendum campaign?

Mr. Michael: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the requirements will be met to the letter. I know that he simply means to cast a slur, but it is not justified. We will take advice whenever it is necessary and make sure that it is fully observed.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the far-reaching nature of the powers of the National Assembly and the difficulties that we face in Wales because of the absence of a national printed press and difficulties with television reception, it is entirely right and proper that public money should be spent to promote knowledge of this important institution? It will change the nature of this place and the civil service.

Mr. Michael: My hon. Friend is right. Objective information will be provided highlighting the date of the elections; for example, there will be a telephone helpline, which I launched on Monday.

Mr. Richard Livsey: Will the Secretary of State agree to investigate information that is coming through about promotion of the National Assembly by the BBC and other media whereby the conventions under the Representation of the People Act may not be adhered to regarding equal time for all political parties? If that is so, would not that be unfair and not in the interests of democracy in Wales?

Mr. Michael: Although it is not a matter for me, I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the requirement for fairness in broadcasting during the pre-election period is crucial. If the hon. Gentleman has specific concerns, I shall be happy to look at them and to ensure that they are raised in the appropriate quarters. It is for the broadcasters to ensure—I hope that they will do so—that they observe the rules to the letter and are fair in all their coverage.

Caroline Flint: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in promoting the Welsh Assembly, there is a golden opportunity to promote a modern


institution that takes into account family-friendly working practices and child care for all those who work and represent within the Assembly?

Mr. Michael: Yes, that is a very good point and it is our intention to do that. However, an Assembly being family friendly suffers, to some extent, the same problems as this House. Those who live a long distance away in north or west Wales have an interest in concentrated periods of longer hours whereas those who live nearer have more of an interest in limitations on the length of the day. I know that, once elected, the Assembly Members will want to engage in discussions on that. Being family friendly in the way suggested by my hon. Friend is part of our thinking in the discussions that I am having with civil servants in preparing the way for the arrival of the Assembly.

Mr. Nigel Evans: The permanent secretary has estimated the full cost of the Assembly in the first year as being £121 million, including, £10 million for the cost of the Assembly building, £20 million for new staff and offices, £28 million for the official opening ceremony and staging the elections and now £2 million to sell this piece of flagship legislation to the public. We were told that we were being fanciful when we said that the Assembly would cost £100 million over five years. That figure has now been exceeded and expenditure is above the White Paper estimate on which people voted. When will the Secretary of State get a grip on this expenditure, which is running away with itself, and ensure that the money is spent in a far better way, on the people of Wales, instead of on politicians and bureaucrats? [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The conversations are far too noisy. It is churlish of the House not to listen to what hon. Members are saying.

Mr. Michael: Hon. Members were probably asking themselves what on earth the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) was on about. He has picked up on figures that were reported inaccurately. In fairness to The Western Mail, it carried a letter, signed by the permanent secretary to the Welsh Office, correcting the figures that he has just used. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman reads that letter before allowing his anger to become even more synthetic.

EU Representation

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: What response he has made to the recommendations of the working party, set up by his Department, on improving links between Wales and the EU; and if he will make a statement. [66273]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): In December, I published the report of the informal working party. I warmly welcomed it as contributing to the on-going debate on improving links with Europe and sent a copy to each Welsh Member of Parliament. I have taken a number of initiatives to promote Wales in Europe since I became Secretary of State and I shall continue to do so. I have made it clear in everything that I have said that our relations with Europe and Wales's profile in Europe are central to

everything that the Welsh Office does before the Assembly comes into being and will be central to the work of the Assembly.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State assure the House that he will accept and implement the almost 50 recommendations in the report? Will he address in particular the suggestion in paragraph 8.5, which says that Welsh Office officials have not been adequately involved in committees and meetings in Europe and asks for greater emphasis to be put on that? What proposals does he have to strengthen the Welsh Office presence in the United Kingdom permanent representation office in Brussels—UKREP—which was also recommended in the report?

Mr. Michael: I have already taken steps along those lines. I was in Brussels 10 days ago when I discussed with UKREP and with commissioners how to improve Wales's profile in Europe. UKREP is positive about the points that we discussed and we shall be co-operating with our permanent representatives. The report has already been before several bodies. The task force on Europe had a two-day session at the beginning of last week to look again at the onset of objective 1 and other issues concerning our relationship with Europe. I intend to take those points forward during the next month.

Mr. Denzil Davies: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the functions that the Secretary of State currently exercises in Whitehall and in Europe will be transferred to the Assembly once it is established and will be exercised by the First Secretary of the Assembly, not by the Secretary of State for Wales?

Mr. Michael: The vast majority of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales will transfer to the Assembly. Some functions will remain with the Secretary of State for Wales. All those issues will be dealt with in the transfer of powers Order that I shall bring forward shortly. That will make clear the details. I understand the point that my right hon. Friend is making.

Mr. John Bercow: Why did the Government refuse to give the Welsh Assembly the right to question the Secretary of State for Wales after a meeting of the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Michael: I am not sure what sort of abstruse point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. The vast majority of the responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales transfer to the Assembly, to which the First Secretary and the Assembly Secretaries will be fully accountable. They will answer questions and will deal with the issues in much more detail than I and my two ministerial colleagues can.

Assisted Areas

Mr. Barry Jones: When he expects changes to be agreed to the assisted area map of Wales; and if he will make a statement. [66274]

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alun Michael): The Commission has asked member states to propose new assisted areas by 31 March 1999.


The proposals will be subject to the agreement of the Commission and the new map will come into force on 1 January 2000.

Mr. Jones: I fear that bureaucrats in Brussels are plotting to take assisted area status away from Deeside. I hope that my right hon. Friend and his Department will work hard to prevent that. Flintshire county council has submitted a detailed memorandum, which I support, and I hope that he will read it. He might like to accompany me at half-past 3 to Room W1, where I have a lobby of Raytheon workers.

Mr. Michael: There is no danger whatever of Deeside being overlooked as long as it is represented with the vigour that my hon. Friend brings to bear. I have been made aware, both by him and by Councillor Tom Middlehurst, of the evidence that Flintshire has submitted, and it will certainly be treated seriously. Having recently visited Raytheon, I can tell my hon. Friend how impressed I am by both the workers and management there, and the co-operation that they demonstrate in their bid to bring new jobs and continued success to the company and the area.

Mr. Owen Paterson: Given the disastrous state of farming in Wales and the totally anaemic Government response to the Welsh Affairs Committee report, what account has the Secretary of State taken of the rural crisis in assisted areas?

Mr. Michael: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would keep quiet on such a point, considering the disastrous nature of the previous Government's work on agriculture and farming. He should be ashamed of himself and keep silent in the Chamber, especially on the subject of the damage that was caused to Welsh farmers. Assisted area status, and indeed area 1 status, will be of particular relevance to farming areas throughout Wales, as are the policies that I have introduced and that were promoted by my immediate predecessor, to concentrate on the needs of mid and west Wales, to bring alternative employment to the areas that have had the most difficulty, and to help farmers to expand their ability to increase their incomes and experience success in the future.

Agenda 2000

Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will make a statement on the impact on Wales of the Agenda 2000 proposals. [66276]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): The Agenda 2000 discussions are a vital component of reform of the European Union that will make an enlarged Union workable and provide for simpler and more easily accessible European programmes for people in all parts of the United Kingdom and the rest of the European Union. The Department is fully involved in discussions on the Agenda 2000 programme, both here and in Brussels, to ensure that Wales's needs are met. In future, agriculture in Wales will be the responsibility of the Assembly, which will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food as lead Minister on European agricultural matters.

Mrs. Winterton: Does the Minister agree that the Agenda 2000 proposals will have a damaging impact on

farm incomes, at a time when Welsh farmers are suffering considerable financial strain under the Government's policies? Cannot a strong case be made for the introduction of an early retirement scheme?

Mr. Jones: I do not agree that the proposals should be regarded as a threat to our industry. Many benefits will flow from them to United Kingdom consumers and to farmers and rural Wales. They will remove uncertainty, allow farmers to plan future investment and move the industry towards a more market-driven and therefore more sustainable future. I should have thought that the hon. Lady would support the Government's efforts to create a sustainable industry in rural Wales and the rural United Kingdom.

Tourism

Mr. Martyn Jones: What are the current employment levels in tourism in (a) Clwyd and (b) Wales. [66278]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): Figures for the former county of Clwyd are no longer available. About 100,000 people are directly or indirectly employed in tourism in Wales. In future, the matter will be the Assembly's responsibility.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware of the poor year that several sectors of the tourist industry in Wales have experienced. Will he provide any extra funding for the Wales tourist board, in particular for marketing, as we will be hosting the rugby world cup this year?

Mr. Hain: We have increased the budget of the Wales tourist board by £1 million this year, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced recently—the biggest-ever increase for tourism in Wales. In addition, we are looking closely at promoting extra funding for the marketing of tourism in Wales, because the Wales tourist board's campaign "Wales—Two Hours and A Million Miles Away" has been extremely successful in encouraging people to come to Wales and enjoy themselves.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Stephen Twigg: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 27 January.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Twigg: No Member of this House could fail to have been moved by the tragic events in Colombia over the past few days. Although the general increase in the Government's aid programme over the past two years has


been widely welcomed, may I ask the Prime Minister what immediate action the Government are taking to support the disaster relief effort in Colombia?

The Prime Minister: This is the worst earthquake in Colombia this century. The numbers of casualties are difficult to confirm, but at least 2,000 are reported to have died. Obviously, the immediate need is for rescue efforts to save people who are still trapped in the rubble, to help people injured or made homeless by the earthquake and then to try to help in the task of providing for those who have been displaced by it. We have made significant sums of money available through the British embassy and the Pan-American Health Organisation as part of our initial response to the immediate needs in Colombia. We also stand ready to make a contribution to a European Union effort. We will continue to do all that we can to ensure that the international community responds to this humanitarian crisis in an effective and co-ordinated way.

Mr. William Hague: May I associate the Opposition with the remarks that the Prime Minister has made on Colombia?
Last week, I asked the Prime Minister about terrorist mutilations and beatings in Northern Ireland. Following that, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland held meetings on Monday to ask for an end to those horrific acts—an initiative that we welcomed. A few hours after those meetings, a 24-year-old man was seized in east Belfast and shot twice. The same thing happened last night. In the past few hours, Eamon Collins—who turned informer against the IRA—has apparently been found dead. There is mounting concern in all parts of the House—as I know the Prime Minister will acknowledge—about this matter. Will he confirm that the Government have the legal power, if they wish, to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners if this barbaric activity does not stop?

The Prime Minister: Yes, that is right—we have the power to bring to an end the early prisoner releases. We would do so in circumstances where we could no longer say that a ceasefire was in place. That, therefore, is the issue—whether the right judgment now is that, as a result of the punishment beatings, the ceasefire is at an end.
I asked for research to be done following Question Time last week, and it might be helpful if I gave the House the figures for punishment beatings over the last few years. In 1994, there were 192; in 1995, 220; in 1996, 326; in 1997, 228; in 1998, 209. During one part of that period—[Interruption.] None of those is tolerable or right. We should do everything we can to stop these incidents and to bring to justice those responsible. However, the point that I am making is that there was a ceasefire before, under the previous Government, during which punishment beatings were being carried out; indeed, to a rather greater degree than now. The previous Government's judgment at the time, which we supported, was that it was not right to bring the whole process to an end. That is the judgment that we continue to make, for the reasons that I have given.

Mr. Hague: May I ask the Prime Minister to acknowledge several things? First, I am grateful for his clarification that the Government have the legal power

about which I inquired, as the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said on the radio this morning that she was not sure about that power.
Secondly, does the Prime Minister agree that the word "beatings", which many of us have used about the punishments being meted out, does not do justice to what is happening in Northern Ireland? Thirdly, will he acknowledge that, although in recent years there have always been such beatings and mutilations, we did not have an agreement in the earlier period? Now we have the Good Friday agreement, which people are meant to be implementing. According to figures from the organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror, representatives of which I met this morning, the number of such incidents increased from 388 in 1997 to more than 500 in 1998. That number is continuing to rise, even after the agreement.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that legislation requires that the Secretary of State must take into account whether these organisations are
committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means",
that they have
ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence",
and that they are
co-operating fully with
the Commission on Decommissioning—which presumably means giving up or preparing to give up their guns or bombs? If none of those things is happening, the Government have not only the power, but the justification at least to put on hold the terrorist releases that are taking place.

The Prime Minister: I think that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was referring to the fact that we cannot slow down the process. However, slowing down is anyway what is happening, as releases are running at about a third of their previous rate. [Interruption.] Yes they are. It is true, however, that we can stop them altogether. In those circumstances, we would then declare that the ceasefire no longer exists.
If that were to happen, the consequences would be immense for the whole of the process in Northern Ireland. I am not saying that it would never be right to come to that judgment, just that I do not believe that such a judgment would be right now. The figures for attacks and assaults on people given by the right hon. Gentleman are not the same as those that I have. However, I pointed out a moment ago that, under the previous Government, there was a ceasefire and punishment beatings went on in exactly the same way. An early release scheme was also going on under that Government. If the right hon. Gentleman wants the figures, I can tell him that there have been 238 releases under this Government's proposals, compared with 325 under the previous Government's scheme. It is correct to say that no lifers were involved under that scheme, but none the less the prisoners involved had been convicted of offences such as conspiracy to murder and to cause explosions, and of armed offences of one sort or another.
I read out that list simply to convey to the right hon. Gentleman that I accept that this is—and has to be—an imperfect process and an imperfect peace. However, it is better than no process and no peace at all.

Mr. Hague: We very much agree that it is an imperfect process and an imperfect peace. The Prime Minister knows that we have supported the Good Friday agreement, that we will continue to do so and that we have backed up the Government on very many of these matters—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. This is very time-consuming. I am watching the clock and I want Back-Bench Members to ask questions, as well as the two Front-Bench Members.

Mr. Hague: If this is not the place to raise the question of violent acts of intimidation carried out against people in our own country, then what is the House of Commons for? We have a bipartisan policy, but we have a disagreement over this matter, as do some Labour Members. It is right for the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) to raise the matter in this House, and it is right for the Opposition to do so as well.
The Secretary of State says that she is prepared to act if there is evidence that particular parties affiliated to paramilitary groups are returning to violence. Much of the necessary evidence seems to exist. The Chief Constable has said that
there is no doubt whatever that all of these organisations, including those who purport to be in cessation of military operations, are engaged in this … activity.
The evidence comes from victims' families and many other sources. Will the Prime Minister, therefore, also accept that the evidence exists in abundance and that there can be little doubt that the paramilitary organisations are responsible for what is happening?

The Prime Minister: As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman last week, it is also the case that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary believes that the ceasefire is still in place. However, let me make one thing clear. I do not dispute the right hon. Gentleman's right to raise matters. He is correct; this is the right place to raise them. What I dispute is this. The previous Government had to make difficult judgments. For example, for months they engaged in secret negotiations with the IRA and denied that they were doing so. When they had to admit it to the House, not one member of the Official Opposition or one Liberal Democrat criticised them for it because we knew the difficulties of the process.
When I point out to the Conservatives that there were punishment beatings and appalling things going on under the previous ceasefire, but that there were prisoner releases, I do so not to criticise the previous Government, but to point out that true bipartisanship is not about talking about it, but about delivering it.
The shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland can chatter away as much as he likes, but I do not doubt that the Leader of the Opposition is well intentioned. I believe that he is being dragged along by some people who do not wish the agreement well. When the Conservatives were in

government, we gave them that support through the difficult as well as the easy times, so I do not dispute their right to raise the matter, but I question the motives of some of them in doing so.

Mr. Hague: Of course, the Prime Minister is right to say that the Labour party often supported the previous Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Always."] But Labour Members also voted against the Prevention of Terrorism Act. The Prime Minister did not make speeches of that sort then. I raise those points not because I am being dragged along by anyone, but because the representatives of Families Against Intimidation and Terror came to see me this morning and said, "You're right to raise this issue. Please go on doing so." We are raising it on their behalf.
The nature of the disagreement is clear. It comes down to one thing and the Prime Minister is being straightforward about it. We say that he has the power to act and the justification to do so, and so forth. He says that, despite all that, the wider interests of peace require the early releases of terrorists to continue. That is a matter of judgment. Is not the logical conclusion of that approach that every terrorist could be released from prison without a single gun or bomb being given up, and without an end to the mutilations? Will he guarantee that that situation will not come about?

The Prime Minister: I take the judgment that I do because I believe that the Good Friday agreement still provides the best chance of peace in Northern Ireland. I have made clear our total condemnation of those attacks and our desire to do all that we can to prevent them, but the right hon. Gentleman also has to face up to the consequences of what he demands me to do. If we ended up exercising our power and declaring the ceasefire at an end, the consequences for the agreement would be huge. We make a judgment the whole time, as I said last week, but I believe that that judgment is essentially still correct. We keep it under review the entire time—[Interruption.] I ask the right hon. Gentleman and Conservative Members who are shouting, "Disgraceful!" and "Shame!", at me to recognise the difficulties faced by any Government in this situation and the enormous consequences of bringing the whole process to an end.

Mr. Hague: We recognise the difficulties, but the great danger is—it is a danger that the Prime Minister must acknowledge—that before long, all the terrorists will be freed without meeting their part of the agreement. For that reason and that reason alone, we are saying that it is right to put on hold the early release of terrorists.

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman will know, even at the end of the two-year period, there will still be people in prison for the offences that they committed. In the end, we have to make a judgment and my judgment is that the wider interests—not of prisoner releases, but of peace in Northern Ireland—require us to continue to do all that we can to make the process work. I raised what happened under the previous Government not to criticise—[Interruption.] No, I am not criticising them. On the contrary, we supported them. We did so precisely because we realised the difficulties that they faced.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the Prevention of Terrorism Act. He well knows what the problem was under the previous Government and what we could have done. At the time, their majority depended on the support of the Ulster Unionists. At any point through all the difficulties of those years, we could have brought down the Government on this matter, had we wished to do so. We did not because we believed that the broader public interest demanded that we acted responsibly. I still believe that the broader public interest is secured by making the agreement work.

Ms Debra Shipley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the huge burdens that are shouldered by carers such as Lucy? She cares for a man, doing all the cooking and cleaning. She gets him up in the morning, helps to put him to bed at night and assists with his personal needs. Lucy is 10 years old and looks after her father. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such children need practical help urgently? Will he assure the House that young carers will receive that practical help under the new strategy for carers?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to the contribution made by carers young and old. There are literally millions of them of every age and in every set of circumstances, and they do a marvellous job caring for relatives. Of course, the rise in child benefit will provide enormous help to all children. As for older people, our proposed pension reforms will ensure that long-term carers get up to £1,500 per year in pension as a result of the flat-rate credits that we shall award them under our new proposals. In addition, from April, we shall introduce a £2.5 billion package for the poorest pensioners. Children such as Lucy will be helped and so will older people.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Ashdown—[Interruption.] Order.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: They will miss me when I am gone.
The Secretary of State for Social Security recently claimed that the average pensioner in Britain—which does not yet include me—was £140 a year better off under Labour, but as every pensioner knows, that is nonsense. Will the Prime Minister confirm that those figures are based on not one year but two, on a family not an individual, apply to only 30 per cent. of pensioners and take no account of raised taxes or lost tax reliefs under the Government? Taking all that into account, is it not the case that the average pensioner in Britain, far from being £140 a year better off, is actually £2 a year worse off under Labour?

The Prime Minister: No. The right hon. Gentleman is not right about that. Indeed, as a result of the cut in VAT on domestic fuel, the special bonuses for fuel of £50 for those on income support and £20 for others, and the package of measures that come into effect in April—the £2.5 billion package that will help the poorest pensioners in particular—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely right.

Mr. Ashdown: I hope that the Prime Minister will look further at those figures, because he will find that they are contested by almost every group that has any credibility in the matter. May I put a simple and concrete proposition to him? It is nearly always the oldest pensioners who are the poorest pensioners. The age supplement for pensioners over 80 has remained at 25p a week for more than a quarter of a century. If the Government were to raise that from 2.5p a week to £5 a week, it would cost relatively little and would reach twice as many pensioners as the minimum income guarantee proposed by the Government. Why not do that?

The Prime Minister: Because we believe that, by raising the minimum pension guarantee by £5 for a single person and £7 for a couple, we shall provide more help to more people. In addition to the things that we are doing for pensioners, which I mentioned a moment ago, from April this year, there will be free eye tests and concessionary travel. We are getting help to many pensioners in the country who would otherwise not get that help. That is all being achieved through measures introduced by the Labour Government to improve the living standards of pensioners of every description throughout the country. Although there is far more that we want to do, that is not a bad start for our first two years in government.

Mr. Gordon Marsden: Does my right hon. Friend share my pride in my constituents from Blackpool Victoria hospital, who came to London yesterday to receive their charter mark award? Does he accept the views of many Labour Members that his comments on that occasion were entirely right, entirely appropriate and in striking contrast to the Conservative Government's frequent denigration of public services?

The Prime Minister: We value those who work in our public services and we are getting more resources into the front line of those services. We shall not cease to say that the extra £40 billion that is going into schools and hospitals from this April—despite the opposition of the Conservative party, whose members said that ours were reckless and irresponsible plans—will not only help to reward better those who work for our public services, but raise the standards of the services themselves.

Ministerial Visit (Kingswear)

Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will visit Kingswear in order to take a trip to sea in a crabber.

The Prime Minister: I regret to say that I have no immediate plans to do so.

Mr. Steen: Either the Prime Minister enjoys the seas around the Seychelles more than the icy steel waters of the English channel, or the reason why he does not want to accept the second invitation that I have extended to him to go to sea in a British fishing boat is that he does not want to see the wanton destruction of the sea beds and the marine environment, which is largely caused by Belgian


and Dutch beam trawlers and scallopers with outsize 1,500 horsepower engines and 40 dredges—20 on either side—which do immense damage to the sea bed and to shellfish. How does he square that with the Labour party's conservation policy?

The Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for the holiday advice. We have no information about Dutch or Belgian vessels infringing their access rights, and if the hon. Gentleman has any such information, we should be grateful if he would bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities. However, the proposition apparently being advanced by the Conservative party, which is to withdraw from the common fisheries policy altogether, would not be a sensible way to proceed. There are huge problems, but we are committed to trying to ensure that the CFP is a more effective instrument for the conservation of fish stocks.
To ensure a more healthy marine environment and a sustainable fishing industry, we are putting in extra investment; and we have managed to tighten European Union rules on the breach of the fishing quotas. To withdraw from the CFP, which is the alternative put forward by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, would lead to a worse situation, not a better one.

Engagements

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: My right hon. Friend took a keen interest in the miners compensation scheme for vibration white finger, which is now in place to the tune of about £500,000. May I ask him to take a keener interest in the other case that the miners are currently fighting, which relates to emphysema and bronchitis, which is a slow, agonisingly painful disease suffered not only by miners, but by their families and, sadly, their widows?

The Prime Minister: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's campaigning on these issues. He was a miner for 30 years or more. We were obviously pleased that we managed to achieve a successful conclusion on the vibration white finger issue. That settlement will mean that many people are compensated who should have been compensated. As for the respiratory disease litigation, I can tell my hon. Friend that we are close to finalising the handling arrangements to deal with the 65,000 claims that we have received to date. We believe, and are hopeful that, full final settlement offers will start to flow in as soon as possible. Before long, we hope to be able to proclaim another agreement to deal with these issues. I hope that that will provide security for many thousands of ex-miners suffering from work-related illnesses. After years and years in which compensation claims were not properly dealt with, it will be a pleasure for the Government to deliver to former miners.

Mr. David Chidgey: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be aware that the Liberal Democrats support the objectives of the Tax Credits Bill and welcome the £1.5 billion of new money to help poorer working families. Does he, however, recognise the strong concerns felt not just by the Liberal Democrats, but by

the Trades Union Congress, the Low Pay Unit and the Confederation of British Industry about the detail of the Bill? Will he give the House an assurance that small firms will be exempt from the burden of administering the scheme and that all employees will have the right to claim their tax credits directly from the Inland Revenue in order to maintain confidentiality?

The Prime Minister: We are addressing the concerns that have been put to us by business. The Inland Revenue will be doing all the administration and calculation of what is due if the employer pays the tax credit through the pay roll, but we are also transferring the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue. So there will be a big simplification of the way in which many businesses handle payments to their staff.
We are making provision at least for single-earner couples to choose to be paid through their order book or bank account. We want to make sure that the scheme works properly and has the minimum potential for abuse within it. We are trying to address all the concerns that have been put to us, but it would be disastrous if we put the scheme at risk. Of course we will listen to any concerns put to us, but literally 1.5 million people will receive a benefit of about £17 a week. All couples or single parents earning even the lowest income will have a minimum income of £10,000 a year.
The shadow Social Security Secretary has pledged that the Conservatives will abolish the scheme. They should know that they will be going into the next election pledging a tax rise of £17 a week for 1.5 million people. Given the state of the Conservative party, it does not surprise me, that that is its proposal.

Mr. Ben Bradshaw: May I welcome the long overdue separation of those responsible for producing Britain's food and those responsible for policing its safety? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, had we had a Food Standards Agency a few years ago, we might have avoided the fiasco of salmonella in eggs and the scandal of BSE? Can he confirm that the funding mechanism for the FSA is still a matter for public consultation, but that the modest cost proposed is a small price to pay for consumer confidence in the safety and quality of Britain's food?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I gather that the Conservative party is now opposed to the proposal. I think that it is making another big mistake. Most people, who remember salmonella, E. coli and BSE, and see that there were 93,000 cases of food poisoning in the past year, believe that the FSA is a long overdue reform. The charge works out at £1.73 a week, which is less than the price of a Big Mac. That is not a great deal to pay for clean and safe food in Britain.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does the Prime Minister intend to visit the trade union rally being held in the House this afternoon? If so, how will he reply to the remarks of John Edmonds, who leads the GMB, who, on the radio this week, described the economy as being as


flat as a pancake? How will he reply to Bill Morris, who leads the GTWU—[Laughter.] Mr. Moms leads one of our major unions. He described the Government's industrial policies as "sterile" and said in the New Statesman that it would be extremely difficult to motivate any of his workers to do any more work for the Labour party.

The Prime Minister: I am delighted that the hon. Lady has decided to support the trade union movement and read

the New Statesman after all these years. I say to her exactly what I say to them—the fact that we are entering an economic downturn with interest rates falling, the lowest long-term interest rates for over 30 years, the Budget deficit cured, 400,000 extra jobs created in the economy and youth unemployment halved since we came to power demonstrates that we have a pretty good record. If the hon. Lady wants to quote the Transport and General and the GMB at me, she should hear what they say about the previous Tory Government.

Point of Order

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is there any way in which you can protect the rights of Back Benchers during Prime Minister's Question Time? You will see from the Order Paper that we got to Question 6. I realise that you called hon. Members who are not in the frame, but are you satisfied that Back Benchers are getting a full share during that half an hour, bearing in mind that we are likely to be in the frame only two or three times a year if we table questions every Wednesday? Will you consider that matter, because I believe that Back Benchers are not receiving our full rights within that half an hour?

Madam Speaker: I thought that it was important for the House and the country to hear the exchanges between the two Front Benchers today, but I am concerned that I am not able to call Back Benchers at Prime Minister's Question Time to the extent that I would like. The questions are too long and the answers are too long. It is unfair for Front Benchers to take up so much time when Back Benchers have a right to question the Prime Minister. The Leader of the Opposition is perfectly entitled to six questions, and I make that clear, but I should like questions to be much more brisk and I certainly seek brisker answers so that I can give Back Benchers a fair deal at Prime Minister's Question Time.

BILL PRESENTED

EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS

Mr. Secretary Byers, supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dewar, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Michael and Mr. Ian McCartney, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to employment, to trade unions and to employment agencies and businesses: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 36].

Prophylactic Mastectomy Registry

Ms Joan Ruddock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a United Kingdom registry of women who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy surgery.
Prophylactic mastectomy covers two types of operation whereby healthy breasts are removed in an attempt to prevent the development of breast cancer. Breast cancer is an emotive issue and any proposals associated with its diagnosis and treatment need careful consideration if they are to assist women and not give rise to greater fears. I am confident that the small measure that I am proposing is responsible and in the public good.
My interest is both personal and scientific. Like so many people—MPs are no exception—I have breast cancer in my family and I receive regular screening in the NHS. I also have an interest in genetics, having spent the early years of my professional life studying and working on that subject at Imperial college, albeit with micro-organisms, not people.
Breast cancer is the most common form of cancer in women, with one in 12 women developing the disease and more than 34,000 new cases diagnosed in the UK each year.
Awareness of breast cancer is high thanks to the numerous campaigns mounted by women's organisations and the cancer charities. Furthermore, recent statistics show that there has been an improvement in breast cancer survival rates in all European countries, including the United Kingdom, as a result of improvements in treatment. However, the more we women take charge of our own health, and the better informed we become, the more difficult it is for the medical profession to give advice.
There are no absolute predictions to be made about the development of this disease. All that women can expect is to receive advice based on the most comprehensive data that can be gathered. Most women are aware that a family history of breast cancer is likely to be significant, and there is a growing awareness that it is possible to develop the disease because of an inherited genetic abnormality.
Only 5 to 10 per cent. of breast cancers are thought to be the result of genetic mutations, yet worried women with a family history form a disproportionately large number of those referred to specialist breast clinics. Most will not actually have an increased risk because their close relative will not be carrying a mutant gene, but there is no simple or sure way of knowing. Some of the genes responsible have been identified; many others remain to be discovered.
The women who are most likely to be at risk of carrying an abnormal gene often have either a mother or sister diagnosed with breast cancer in their early 30s or 40s, plus several other members of the family similarly affected. If a young woman with breast cancer is found to have a genetic mutation, it is reasonable to test whether close relatives have inherited the risk, of which there is a 50:50 chance.
In those circumstances, half the women tested will be reassured that they do not have the susceptibility of their mother or sister, but the other half will be told that they


have a genetic mutation which predisposes them to a breast cancer risk over a lifetime of 56 per cent. What are those women to do? What are the many women with strong family histories but no genetic screening to do?
Some will feel able to live with the risk, accept close medical surveillance or enter into a trial preventive drug programme such as that carried out with tamoxifen, but, increasingly, women in high-risk categories are undertaking the most radical preventive action of all—they are having both healthy breasts surgically removed.
I have no doubt that, on the basis of the available evidence, those women—we believe that they number between 200 and 500 a year in the United Kingdom—are making an entirely rational decision. As one of them told columnist Jenni Murray in The Express:
I can live without my breasts but I don't want to die because of them.
The stark truth is that no one can be certain that those drastic measures, which carry with them risk and trauma, will guarantee a lifetime free of breast cancer. It is for that reason that I am introducing a Bill to establish a UK-wide register of all women who undergo preventive mastectomy. The register would record who had the operations, where and for what reason. Over time, such a register would enable consultants to give women a precise statistical account of the effectiveness of those preventive operations.
The proposal for such a registry comes not originally from me, but from one of the UK's most eminent breast cancer consultants, Professor Ian Fentiman, of Guy's hospital. It is his view that nothing less than a national register will enable us to gain a full picture of the value of those operations.
The only available data come from a retrospective study of 639 women who underwent bilateral prophylactic mastectomy in the United States at the Mayo clinic between 1960 and 1993. Professor Fentiman believes that that study is too small to give dependable statistics that would allow surgeons to compare the efficacy of the different forms of operation involved. Furthermore, and more significantly, that survey was conducted on women who were treated before genetic testing was a reality.
I see no alternative to a UK register of those operations, and a compulsory register at that. Such compulsory notification does not break new ground. We already have a national cancer registry into which details of cancer diagnoses are entered. Pathologists, who are already familiar with such record keeping, would simply be required to record details of the preventive operations in a similar way. Once a registry of all prophylactic mastectomies had been set up and linked to a register of all breast cancer patients, we would have the means of properly assessing preventive mastectomy.
In addition to my sponsors in the House, to whom I am extremely grateful, my proposal has the support of Imperial Cancer Research, the UK Breast Cancer Coalition and the Royal College of Nursing.
Women who are seeking genetic testing and having to make the decision whether or not to undergo mastectomy are frightened and uncertain. We owe it to those women and to their families to use every means at our disposal to make that decision as informed as possible. The very least that surgeons should be able to offer them is advice based on proper statistics and proper research. A national registry of prophylactic mastectomies would be a first and vital step towards achieving that and aiding all of us—our scientists, our surgeons and women ourselves—in defeating this pernicious disease.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Ms Joan Ruddock, Ms Judith Church, Mr. Frank Doran, Dr. Ian Gibson, Dr. Evan Harris, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Dr. Ashok Kumar, Ms Jackie Lawrence, Mrs. Alice Mahon, Laura Moffatt, Ms Julie Morgan and Ms Dan Taylor.

PROPHYLACTIC MASTECTOMY REGISTRY

Ms Joan Ruddock accordingly presented a Bill to establish a United Kingdom registry of women who have undergone prophylactic mastectomy surgery: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 26 February, and to be printed [Bill 37].

Opposition Day

[4TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Terrorist Mutilations (Northern Ireland)

Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I remind the House that Back-Bench speeches must be limited to 15 minutes.

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the alarming increase in the numbers of terrorist beatings, mutilations, shootings, cases of intimidation and instances of people being forced to leave their homes in Northern Ireland; notes that these are being carried out by organisations whose political representatives backed the Belfast Agreement; further notes that these continued attacks are clear breaches of the Belfast Agreement that required a commitment to exclusively democratic and peaceful methods and that terrorist ceasefires had to be complete and unequivocal; recalls that the Prime Minister said that for terrorist organisations to benefit from prisoner release schemes there must be an end of violence including bombings, killings and beatings; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to use its powers contained in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 to halt the early release of terrorist prisoners until violence in Northern Ireland has ended in all its forms.
It is the duty of the House to debate the serious issue of the mutilations, torture and beatings, which are increasing in Northern Ireland. I know that I speak for every hon. Member who has taken his or her place in the Chamber in saying that this House unequivocally condemns those horrendous, nauseating and brutal attacks.
I shall set the scene by giving some statistics that have been prepared by Families Against Intimidation and Terror, a non-sectarian organisation that is doing marvellous work to help the victims of such mutilations and beatings, giving them hope, succour and, at times, protection and, sadly, at other times, spiriting them out of the country to safety.
By 23 January this year, there had been six so-called loyalist shootings and four IRA shootings, 15 loyalist terrorist beatings and 12 IRA terrorist beatings, 37 loyalist terrorist instances of intimidation and 22 IRA intimidations, and the loyalists had forced 33 people into exile away from their homes in Northern Ireland, and the IRA, 29. Those figures illustrate much, but illustrate first that there is absolutely no difference in the evil and violence, whether from republicans in the shape of the IRA and splinter groups, or so-called loyalist paramilitaries, and that they commit their dreadful acts in roughly equal number.
Some suggestion has emanated from Downing street today that, somehow, the beatings, mutilations and torture have been reduced in number and are diminishing. I wish that that were so. Families Against Intimidation and Terror tells us—I have no reason to doubt its figures—that, in 1996, there were 501 such attacks; in 1997, 388; last year, 500; and, by 23 January this year, already 158.

Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I shall in a moment; I want to finish this point. The discrepancy arises from the fact that, as the

Secretary of State and others will be aware, following many cases of intimidation and torture, people dare not go to the authorities or the police, and certainly do not go through the courts. Therefore, FAIT has more accurate and up-to-date figures than, sadly, the Royal Ulster Constabulary can possibly have.

Mr. Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman has answered my question, which was to ask him to explain the variation in the figures.

Mr. MacKay: Another point needs to be made at the beginning of the debate, on which I know there will be no dispute between the Secretary of State and myself. We are not talking about punishment beatings. For my constituents in Bracknell, the term "punishment beating" sounds like a modest extension of neighbourhood watch—at the very worst some vigilante group modestly beating up drug dealers or vandals. Let us make absolutely clear what is going on in Northern Ireland. We are talking of mutilation, and of beatings in which every bone in the victim's body is deliberately broken. It is intimidation of the very worst sort, and often leads to exile. Let us ask the media and anybody else discussing those foul acts not to call them punishment beatings, or even so-called punishment beatings.
Paramilitaries on both sides of the sectarian divide—those evil men—would like us to believe that the victims are often drug dealers, paedophiles or others of an antisocial nature. That is occasionally so, but, more often, it is not. They are innocent victims of brutal, evil men.
Even if that were not true, and even if the majority of victims were not innocent, it cannot be right in a democracy, and in our country, for any group to take it upon itself to be the police, the judge, the jury and the executioner. I know that all hon. Members in the Chamber will want to send that message, loud and clear, to those evil psychopaths.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that those allegations should not be discussed across the Dispatch Boxes of this House, but should be deposited with the Royal Ulster Constabulary? Does he also agree that the agreement that was signed up to on Good Friday gives the best prospect for the people of Northern Ireland to have such matters settled in the way in which they are settled in the rest of the United Kingdom, or is he saying that his contribution is to try to pull away one of the planks of that agreement, at the risk of bringing the whole lot down? How would that serve the people of both parts of Ireland?

Mr. MacKay: That was an unusually ill-thought-out contribution from a senior Member of the House.

Mr. Tony McNulty: Answer him.

Mr. MacKay: I shall answer the hon. Gentleman directly: I believe, and have said so continually since Good Friday last year, that the Belfast agreement is the best hope for lasting peace and a settlement in Northern Ireland. That is why my party whole-heartedly supports it.
The second question asked by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett)—

Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. MacKay: No, there is a second question, which needs to be answered.
Of course, in a perfect world, I would require any victim of crime to go to the police. If a constituent came to my office in Bracknell and said that something had happened to him, I would immediately say, "Go down to the police station." With the greatest respect, I say to the hon. Member for Erdington, "Life ain't like that in Northern Ireland." I could take him to a significant number of people, in both communities, who dare not go to the police and who have been brutally beaten. That is a sad fact.
If the hon. Gentleman is saying that, somehow, I am wrong to raise those matters on the Floor of the House, I profoundly disagree.

Mr. Corbett: indicated dissent.

Mr. MacKay: I am delighted to see the hon. Gentleman shaking his head.

Mr. Robathan: Is there not a curious dichotomy? On the one hand, we hear Martin McGuinness claim on the radio this morning that those people who are being mutilated and viciously beaten up are in some way criminals, without any form of trial having taking place. On the other, the Secretary of State says, understandably, that she has no evidence and cannot bring the perpetrators of those crimes to court. Does that not reveal that the rule of law does not run in large parts of Northern Ireland? There is a rule of fear, and the Secretary of State knows as well as we do that it is enforced by people who are pretending to talk peace.

Mr. MacKay: My hon. Friend gives another good example of Mr. Martin McGuinness and his friends misleading the public and this House by giving the impression that they are merely a vigilante group that is trying to do good for its community. All right hon. and hon. Members who have taken their seats in this House know better than that gentleman, who has failed to take his seat.
Since 23 January, matters have got worse. There was a brutal double kneecapping in east Belfast by loyalist terrorists on Monday night. An equally obnoxious crime was committed, almost certainly by republican terrorists, in west Belfast last night. News is coming in of the death, outside Newry, of Eamon Collins, the author of "Killing Rage". The House will recall that he was a senior member of the IRA command who turned informer and had to flee to the mainland for a number of years. Eighteen months ago, he courageously returned to his home town of Newry, but he has now been killed. So it goes on, and it gets worse.
Let me be more specific about a few recent cases. The House will recall that I raised the case of John Brown during a debate in the autumn. John Brown is 79 and lives in a small flat in Belfast. Members of the IRA came to his flat and kneecapped him because, they alleged, he was

a paedophile. Unfortunately for Mr. Brown, the IRA had gone to the wrong house: the alleged paedophile lived in a flat next door. That poor man will never walk properly again.
More recently, there have been other dreadful cases. One occurred within the last fortnight, in Strabane. Let me read from an article by Martin Fletcher, published in The Times on Thursday, 14 January.
Six masked IRA men burst into Noel Diver's house last Saturday, pulled the 24-year-old from the sofa and beat him with baseball bats and an iron bar. It was several minutes before they realised that they had the wrong house and the wrong man.
They left without a word, went next door, seized 22-year-old Michael Brennan, and offered a running commentary as they smashed his limbs.
'Wait till you hear this one break,' one shouted as he swung a baseball bat down at Mr. Brennan's arm. 'You're a big man now,' said another as they left their victim groaning on his kitchen floor.
This is the story of everyday life on one of the many housing estates in Northern Ireland where republican or loyalist paramilitary groups rule through terror, where the police venture only in armoured Land Rovers, and where neither the ceasefire nor the Good Friday accord has made a jot of difference.
No one, but no one, here will have been other than moved by the pictures of Andrew Peden, who—brutalised beyond belief, and left for dead—somehow survived, but lost both his legs. The Times reported on Wednesday, 20 January:
The Pedens have received no compensation…Mrs Peden has given up her job to nurse her husband round the clock. 'I don't know what it's like having a night's sleep,' she said. 'He cries out every night for help. He relives it every night. If he gets an hour's sleep that's it. It's wrecked our family.'
She knows the men who attacked her husband, and sees them when she shops. 'When they see me they drop their heads or go to the other side of the streets,' she said. 'They are ashamed. They are just evil men. I just hope God repays them."'

Mr. David Winnick: Everyone condemns such acts by so-called freedom fighters for republicanism or unionism. They are outright thugs, as everyone recognises, and as is recognised in the Government amendment. However, what guarantee can there be that, if the policy advocated by the Opposition were implemented by the Government, the beatings and thuggery would slow down or end? Is there not a danger that they would increase, and that the peace agreement could be torn to pieces? Surely we should exercise judgment and recognise that the present position is better than a return to bombing, while ensuring that the police use every effort to hunt down thugs who commit the kind of intimidation about which the right hon. Gentleman has been reading?

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman and I agree that such beatings and mutilations are abhorrent. Like me, the hon. Gentleman has spoken out in debate after debate in the Chamber. It is indeed a matter of judgment, as the Prime Minister has told us from the Dispatch Box several times in recent weeks. Our judgment—I shall say more about this shortly—is that it is far more likely that the beatings will stop if the terrorist prisoners are no longer released. The pressure in the terrorist communities on


both sides of the sectarian divide to "get the boys out" will be huge, and we know from past experience that they can turn the tap of violence on and off to suit themselves.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. MacKay: I want to make some progress, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in due course, because he takes a keen interest in debates on this subject.
Who is to blame? In a BBC Radio Ulster interview on 15 January, the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, Sir Ronnie Flanagan, said:
I've always said it's not my business to define a cessation of violence or a cessation of military operations, and therefore it's not my business to determine what constitutes a breach of such cessations".
That, incidentally, shows that the Prime Minister inadvertently misled the House last Wednesday when he said that the Chief Constable had said that the ceasefire was still intact. Sir Ronnie went on to say:
But you will think the wording of these organisations in terms of their announced cessations and they are cessations of military operations. So perhaps they have some distorted, perverted view that this sort of activity doesn't come within the term, 'military operations"'.
He also said:
But there is no doubt whatever that all of these organisations [IRA, UVF, UDA, UFF] including those who purport to be in cessations of military operations, are engaged in this repugnant activity".
In a separate article in Police Review on 22 January, he said:
Notwithstanding the fact that they are adhering to what they define as 'cessations of military operations', this does not mean that the threat they pose has been permanently disposed of. This does not mean that they are inactive. I have no doubt that these 'mainstream' groups continue to be involved in the barbaric activity of mutilations through paramilitary assaults".
There we have it confirmed by the Chief Constable. Those who are responsible for those evil, nauseating acts are the same people who signed up to the Belfast agreement on Good Friday. The House needs no reminding whatever that an essential part of that agreement was the renunciation of violence in all its forms.
I should like to quote from the Prime Minister during the referendum campaign. I, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) and other colleagues campaigned for a yes vote in that referendum and would do so again because, as I said in response to the hon. Member for Erdington the Belfast agreement is the best way forward for the people of Northern Ireland. When the Prime Minister made his speech at the Balmoral showgrounds in Belfast on 14 May last year, he said
that, again as the Agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal: an end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed; an end to targeting and procurement of weapons; progressive abandonment and dismantling of paramilitary structures actively directing and promoting violence".
That is also our definition of a cessation of violence. It is clearly not happening. He went on to say:
These factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgment—a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time".

I concur entirely and the Secretary of State has made similar remarks at the Dispatch Box in response to me and to other hon. Members.
In the same speech, the Prime Minister said:
the only prisoners whose cases can even be considered by the Independent Review Commission are those belonging to organisations which are observing a total and unequivocal ceasefire".
That is why, in a supply day on a similar subject before Christmas, we moved a motion on the Floor of the House saying that terrorist prisoners should not be released any more until there was substantial and verifiable decommissioning. It is absolutely clear that the ceasefire is not holding because violence is continuing at pace and increasing. Violent, dreadful crimes are being committed.

Mr. John Bercow: Does my right hon. Friend recall that, only eight days before the speech to which he has just referred, the Prime Minister said in response to questioning by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
In the light of the fact that that commitment has not been honoured, is it not essential that those releases should be halted until terrorism stops and decommissioning starts?

Mr. MacKay: There are many people who voted yes in the referendum—whom we rightly encouraged them to do so—because of the assurances freely given from the Dispatch Box by the Prime Minister to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in May and to the people of Northern Ireland in the speech at the agricultural showground to which I have just referred.
I am trying to keep this speech as low key as possible, but I have to report that many of those people feel badly let down by the Prime Minister, and I can understand why. I believe that there is no choice for the Government but to have the agreement, which we support, implemented in full. An absolutely vital aspect of that agreement is that violence should be renounced for good and that crimes should not be committed. Instead, violent and vicious crimes are still being committed.

Mr. Stephen Day: rose—

Dr. Godman: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I will give way first to the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow. He is going to tell me that I have got his constituency wrong again. I will then give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Day).

Dr. Godman: The right hon. Gentleman is immensely polite but awfully forgetful. My constituency is now Greenock and Inverclyde.
The Opposition's motion ends with a demand for a halt to the early release of terrorist prisoners until all violence ends. Will the right hon. Gentleman specify what groups of prisoners should be denied early release or is he talking about all scheduled prisoners?

Mr. MacKay: I apologise for getting the hon. Gentleman's constituency wrong again. I do not know what happened to Port Glasgow, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will tell me privately.


The answer is straightforward. The Chief Constable and other observers believe that all the paramilitaries who signed the Good Friday agreement, both loyalist and republican, are involved in those awful beatings and mutilations.

Mr. Corbett: Where is the evidence?

Mr. MacKay: The evidence is coming from the Chief Constable. The hon. Member for Erdington may shake his head, but I do not intend to repeat myself because many other hon. Members want to participate in the debate. I have quoted extensively from the Chief Constable and I thought that he had made the position abundantly clear. The evidence comes not just from the Chief Constable but from other interested observers whose reputations are high and whose courage is outstanding. Nobody doubts that the evidence is there.

Mr. Day: My right hon. Friend has talked about the desirability of the Government recognising that those who claim to have signed up to peace are not carrying out their pledges in practice. Will he include in the description of those people not just those who claim to be the official IRA? Will he confirm that, in fact, Continuity IRA and the Real IRA are nothing but a mask to allow certain people in Sinn Fein to claim that the beatings are not carried out by the IRA when we know full well that Sinn Fein-IRA, Real IRA and Continuity IRA are one and the same?

Mr. MacKay: I am not sure that I can confirm that. That is a matter that my hon. Friend will have to pursue with the Secretary of State and Ministers. However, it is important that the House does not discriminate in any shape or form when condemning terrorism, from whatever side of the sectarian divide and whichever misguided organisation is involved.
We have now established without any reasonable doubt that republican and loyalist parties that signed the Good Friday agreement are behind the atrocities, beatings and mutilations. They are in breach of the agreement. Last summer, we passed the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998. Section 3(9) says that, when specifying organisations, the Secretary of State shall take into account whether that organisation
(a) is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve its objectives"—
clearly, that is not so—
(b) has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence"—
clearly not—
(c) is directing or promoting acts of violence"—
they clearly are—
(d) is co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in implementing the Decommissioning section of the agreement reached at the multi-party talks on Northern Ireland, set out in Command Paper 3883"—
they are clearly not doing so.
The Secretary of State and I were in dispute when the Bill went through. I shall not rake over the arguments, but she knows that I should have preferred the Bill to have said that she had to stop the prisoner releases if any of those conditions were breached. She persuaded the House,

mainly thanks to the Government's majority, that it was better that she should just take those conditions into account. That is why we voted against the Third Reading.
I warned in July that there was a real possibility that all the conditions would be breached by the paramilitaries, but the Secretary of State would still be within her rights to say that she was not convinced and that it was better on balance to allow prisoners to be released. That is a great pity. I have shown that the paramilitaries are in breach of the agreement on all four counts, so there is no excuse for letting any more terrorist prisoners out early.
In the five months since the Act became law, the Government have released nearly 250 terrorist prisoners early, out of a total of approximately 400 who might be eligible. I suggest that the Government have been more than generous. I did not oppose the early release of some terrorist prisoners, because that was part of the agreement, which we supported. I fully understood that the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister had to show the paramilitaries their good faith and demonstrate that they were prepared to implement their side of the agreement.
However, once that had been done, some sign was needed that the violence had stopped and the decommissioning had started. Neither has happened. Not an ounce of semtex or a single gun has been handed in by any of the paramilitaries that signed up to the Belfast Good Friday agreement. As I have shown—more importantly, so have the Chief Constable of the RUC and Families Against Intimidation and Terror—the number of beatings and mutilations has increased. We believe that there should be a halt to prisoner releases until there is substantial and verifiable decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives and until it is clear that violence has ceased once and for all.
It is the duty of the Opposition to speak out when there is a fundamental wrong. The Secretary of State and the Prime Minister know that we understand the advantages to Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom of a bipartisan approach, which has been in place for several years, but we have always said that we cannot give the Government a blank cheque, just as the Labour Opposition failed to give us a blank cheque when they did not support us on the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act year in and year out. We shall speak out if we believe that the agreement, which we and the Government support, is not being implemented.
I shall speak out loudly when the victims are innocent people, often with a limited education and difficult job prospects in the poorest estates across the Province. Do Labour Members honestly believe that action would not have been taken if there had been mutilations, tortures and beatings in some of the leafy suburbs of south Belfast or the commuter lands of north Down? Of course action would have been taken, because there are articulate and important people there, but the poor bloody infantry are being brushed under the carpet and ignored.
Through the work of Families Against Intimidation and Terror and of several journalists, the House can now bring the matter to wider attention. It is time for the House to demand that the Government act. The best way of acting is to stop any further release of terrorist prisoners.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Marjorie Mowlam): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'condemns absolutely the barbaric practice of paramilitary attacks in Northern Ireland, condemns the human and material cost of these assaults and the contempt they demonstrate for the rule of law; notes the commitment made by all parties who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement to "the protection and vindication of the human rights of all"; welcomes the Government's determination to fulfil its responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement in this as in every other area; and calls on all people, parties and organisations to use all their influence to bring these attacks to an immediate stop, to help the police in any way they can, and to work to build on the Good Friday Agreement to create a society in Northern Ireland where such attacks are a thing of the past.'.
I presume that the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) would apply his point about working versus middle class to the previous Government, too, as the policy has not changed, so it is not in that sense a party matter. I assure him that the Government have done more to help victims than the previous Government did. We put money into a memorial fund; we set up an educational bursary to help children; and we are putting together a trauma unit. Through concrete, specific actions, rather than words, we are doing everything that we can to ease the pain and suffering that families are going through.
I say to the right hon. Member for Bracknell, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said to the Leader of the Opposition last week, that I completely share his disgust at those attacks and that I share many of his concerns. There is no difference between us, nor indeed between any Members of Parliament, in our condemnation of those barbaric acts. The question that we all face is how best to bring them to an end.
I would argue that the Government are doing everything that they can to answer that question in good faith. There have been thousands of those attacks during the past 30 years. Punishment assaults, beatings, shootings and mutilations have been an unacceptable feature of life in Northern Ireland for far too long, but condemnation alone is not enough. Words are not enough; action is needed on the underlying problems.
For 30 years, Governments of both parties have tried to stop paramilitary assaults, through extra security measures, appeals to the public to help the police, and television advertising. Governments have condemned, but the attacks have continued. The numbers that are available do not tell the full story; as the right hon. Gentleman said, many people are too frightened to report attacks and go to the police with the evidence.
Northern Ireland has suffered from a crisis of confidence: a lack of confidence between communities, between politicians, and among the institutions of Government and those charged with maintaining law. Groups have been committed to violence to achieve their ends. That crisis of confidence has to be addressed, and that is what the Good Friday agreement is designed to do, by creating structures that will give the communities the confidence to say no, once and for all, to those who mutilate and to the vigilantes carrying out the acts that the right hon. Gentleman described.
With the Good Friday agreement, the people of Northern Ireland are now closer than they have ever been to achieving that, and that is what we risk losing if we go

down the route suggested by the right hon. Gentleman. He made it clear that the motion is based on the view that the paramilitary assaults mean that the ceasefires are not intact. The status of the ceasefires is a judgment that I have to make in the round, taking full account of the best security advice available to me.
My judgment is that the ceasefires are being maintained, a view that the right hon. Gentleman accepted when we last debated this issue in the House. He said:
The Secretary of State has the benefit of the best security advice available, and it is that those organisations are maintaining a ceasefire. I accept that".—[Official Report, 9 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 330.]
I discuss these issues frequently with the Chief Constable of the RUC, and while the overall judgment is mine—I take responsibility for it—I have no reason to believe that he disagrees with my interpretation.
The motion argues that one aspect of the agreement—early prisoner releases—should be halted until all forms of violence end, and that it would then be more likely that the attacks would stop. I do not believe, given the advice that I have that the ceasefires continue to hold, that if I rewrote the agreement, unilaterally stopping one part—prisoner releases—the process would stay intact. I could also, I believe, face challenges in the courts. I accept that the balance is difficult and, like my predecessors, I have difficult judgments to make.

Mr. Ken Maginnis: How does the Secretary of State reconcile what she has just said with her statement in this House on 10 June last year? She said then that
if circumstances deteriorate in Northern Ireland, the programme of release will be stopped and no prisoners will be released…during the referendum campaign, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that if parties are to benefit from accelerated release, their commitment to democratic, non-violent means must be established in an objective, meaningful and verifiable way".—[Official Report, 10 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 1083.]

Marjorie Mowlam: We are talking about a process that will not happen overnight—it is not like turning a switch on and off. It takes time for the process to develop, and I believe that that is what we are doing now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nine months."] Yes, nine months—a short time in terms of the years of violence that have gone before.
Decisions in terms of the agreement and the ceasefire are based on evidence from the security forces, the police and elsewhere. I have to make the judgment, and I have judged that the ceasefire is intact. I have no reason to believe that the Chief Constable disagrees with that interpretation.

Ms Margaret Moran: Is the information from the RUC Chief Constable in accordance with the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State? Does she agree that it is important that we do not undermine the RUC, which has a difficult job in identifying the perpetrators of violence and bringing them to justice?

Marjorie Mowlam: I get evidence from the police and other security organisations, but I make the judgment myself. It is not the Chief Constable—I take responsibility. I consult the Chief Constable regularly,


and I have no reason to believe that he disagrees with my conclusions. My hon. Friend mentioned how difficult it is for the police to do their job, and there is no doubt about that. We ought to commend the police. In the Markets area of Belfast recently, for example, the local community police officer received a UK-wide award. Efforts are being made to break the vicious cycle, and that is the difficulty that we are faced with.

Mr. MacKay: The Secretary of State is right to say that the final decision ought to be hers and not the Chief Constable's—the whole House accepts that. However, does she accept that I gave direct and detailed quotes from Sir Ronnie Flanagan's interview with Radio Ulster during my speech? He said again and again, categorically—as he did in the Police Review—that the paramilitaries who had signed up to the Belfast Agreement were the perpetrators of the dreadful tortures, attacks and beatings that we are debating today.

Marjorie Mowlam: Sir Ronnie said that those groups were involved, but he did not go on to say that there was evidence to charge individuals, organisations or members within those organisations. If there is evidence, the Chief Constable will use it to initiate prosecutions. However, there is no evidence. I must work on evidence, and that is my judgment. I deal not in hearsay or in rumour, but in evidence. I have not seen evidence to support a conclusion different from the one that I have reached.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Marjorie Mowlam: I wish to make a little more progress, but I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman later.
I readily accept that the balance is a difficult one. I, like my predecessors, have difficult judgments to make. Did the noble Lord Mayhew abandon his new law—as I am being asked to do—letting terrorist prisoners out early in 1996? He did not, even though that was the worst year on record for paramilitary assaults, and even though the IRA ended its ceasefire and we had the bomb at Canary Wharf, the London bus bombing, the explosion at Osnabrück and other incidents.
Lord Mayhew could have abandoned that law. He could have reversed his earlier decision. He did not, because his judgment told him that the process of working for a lasting peace required a different course of action. We supported him in that judgment, because we thought the same—and we still do.
However, I do not want to dwell on the past. It is better to face up to the future.

Mr. MacKay: It is very important for the House to be absolutely clear about everything that is said today, as many people will be listening to the debate. The Secretary of State said a moment ago that she had to have evidence before there could be convictions. That is not anybody else's interpretation of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, which provides that she has to make a judgment on the information that she receives from the security forces and elsewhere.
Will the Secretary of State correct what she said, as it is not true that she can decertify paramilitary organisations only when there are convictions in court?

She knows full well how difficult the intimidation of witnesses and victims makes it for the police to get convictions. I should be grateful for a clarification, as I think that she inadvertently misled the House.

Marjorie Mowlam: I did not inadvertently mislead the House. I said that, if there was sufficient evidence to permit prosecution, I have no doubt that the Chief Constable and the RUC would prosecute. I am not saying that the evidence presented to me by the Chief Constable has to go to a court of law, but I have to make a judgment about it. I have made my conclusion clear.
We must rely on the facts, not delude ourselves with half-answers. The task facing the RUC, with Garda support, in attempting to bring to book and to court those responsible for the Omagh bomb is difficult enough. It does not need to be made all the more difficult by someone threatening to act unwisely under the privileges of this House. Equally, it is difficult enough for both the police and the Government to deal with the issue of paramilitary assaults without having to cope with unhelpful or misleading speculation.
As I have just made clear to the right hon. Member for Bracknell, we must stick to the facts and to the rule of law, not to the law of the latest rumour.

Mr. William Cash: On the "Today" programme this morning, the Secretary of State said that she did not really know whether she had the legal powers to deal with the type of situation that we are discussing. However, at Question Time, the Prime Minister said emphatically that she had that legal power. What is the legal nature and character of the problem that she was talking about this morning? Why does she not agree with the Prime Minister?

Marjorie Mowlam: I do agree with the Prime Minister. What I said this morning was that I have legal powers, but they are limited. If a person breaks his or her licence, I can, under the powers of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, work with the independent sentences review commission and get the licence revoked by resubmitting that person's name. Under the Good Friday agreement, if I think that the ceasefire is not intact, I can name specific organisations or groups and none of their members who are in prison will be released.
Those are two of my specific powers. It is also possible, under the Good Friday agreement, to stop the whole process. That is what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to, and he outlined clearly the implications if we took that course of action. If I have evidence against organisations, I will act similarly, but I need that evidence—[Interruption.] I need the evidence before I can act.
In response to the debate, I have tried to put the issue in the proper context, but that does not in any way reduce the Government's condemnation of the appalling assaults. I am determined that they should be brought to an end.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary will continue to have the Government's full support in its efforts to bring those responsible to justice. If there is clear evidence that any released prisoner on licence is carrying out attacks, I will suspend the licence and the prisoner will be returned to prison. If I judge that any group's ceasefire is at an end,


based on that information I will stop its releases. At present, that is not my judgment and that is why the Government cannot support the Opposition motion.

Mr. David Trimble: I hope that I will not be too repetitious on some of the points that have already been made, although it is inevitable that one will be. Like the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay), I begin by congratulating Families Against Intimidation and Terror, which has done a tremendous amount of good for many individuals who have been trying to free themselves from the influence of terrorist organisations. It has also done a tremendous amount of good by bringing to the public's attention the full horror of the intimidation, social terrorism, beatings and mutilations that have been going on in parts of Belfast, and from which various elements of polite society have been averting their attention for too long, as the right hon. Gentleman said. Class elements are involved and Labour Members might like to reflect on that too.
I shall start by referring to the death overnight of Mr. Eamon Collins, although it is not yet clear exactly what happened. It is one of those situations in which the police, on discovering that there is perhaps more to it than meets the eye, are rightly taking their time. Mr. Collins's background is well known. He is a former member of the IRA, who gave evidence against them, broke from them and published a book, which has been mentioned. In recent months, he has been an increasingly brilliant critic of the Republicans, particularly in the columns of the Irish News, the main nationalist newspaper in Northern Ireland. Only a few months ago, that resulted in his home on the outskirts of Newry being burnt down under suspicious circumstances, so fears that the death was also suspicious are inevitable, but we must not jump to conclusions.
At this stage, it looks as though it is another killing and that the republican movement is responsible. It follows on from other killings, in particular the Kearney killing, towards the end of last year; and I wonder about the timing, given the way in which the Secretary of State was snubbed by Sinn Fein-IRA earlier this week.
A few weeks ago, I had the honour—I use the term advisedly—of meeting Mr. Kearney's mother. She is a lady of republican views, from a republican background, but I take my hat off to her for the courage that she displayed when she went to a shopping centre in west Belfast to confront the man—one of the IRA's leaders in north Belfast—who ordered the killing. She confronted him there in the street and mentioned his name—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Name him."] No, I will not give his name, although I did mention it in the House some years ago. She went up to him and said, "Why did you order my son's killing?" From what she told me of her dealings with the IRA leadership in Belfast in general, there is no doubt about the fact that that killing was ordered by the IRA leadership. It was not some low-level activity. It was not even the work of that north Belfast commander. The action was approved at what the IRA would call brigade staff level in Belfast.
I am sure that the facts that are known to Mr. Kearney's mother are also known to the police and are part of the reason why the Chief Constable of the RUC told society

in Northern Ireland that he has no doubt that the organisations—as organisations—are engaged in such attacks. Although there is a tendency to focus on the Republican movement because it is failing to carry out its other obligations, we must remind ourselves and the House that Loyalist organisations are also involved.
In recent months, the number of beatings and shootings by Loyalist organisations has outstripped those by Republicans. I have my suspicions as to the motives, particularly of the Ulster Volunteer Force. I think that I am right in saying that the majority of Loyalist beatings, shootings and murders—including a recent murder—were carried out by the Ulster Volunteer Force. I suspect that there is a particular political motivation for the escalation of UVF beatings and shootings. However, that will not be news to the Secretary of State, who is aware of these matters.
I should like to comment on three things said during Northern Ireland questions last Wednesday that disturbed me greatly then and have been repeated here today. First, I shall quote the Secretary of State. She has qualified the position somewhat today, but last Wednesday she said:
I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Chief Constable's words were generic and that he said clearly that, in his opinion, all groups were still on ceasefire."—[0fficial Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 898.]
That is a more categoric misleading of the House than the subsequent words of the Prime Minister to which the right hon. Member for Bracknell referred. As the Secretary of State said today, that is not the position nor is it what the Chief Constable said.
Last week's questions referred to what the Chief Constable had said in an interview that was broadcast on 15 January. I apologise for the repetition, but I remind the House of his precise words:
I've always said it's not my business to define a cessation of violence or a cessation of military operations; and therefore it's not my business to determine what constitutes a breach of such cessations. But you will think of the wording of these organisations in terms of their announced cessations and they are indeed cessations of military operations. So perhaps they have some distorted, perverted view that this sort of barbaric activity doesn't come within the term 'military operation'.
The Chief Constable was saying two things. First, he said that it was not his business to determine what constitutes a breach. I am glad that the Secretary of State has clarified that. The Chief Constable does not determine. He gives views as to the circumstances and informs people of the intelligence that he receives. The Secretary of State was in error last week when she said that the Chief Constable had said that the IRA and others were not in breach of the ceasefire. Furthermore, on 15 January the Chief Constable was saying that the organisations—particularly the IRA, as the terms of the Loyalist declaration were slightly different—in declaring their cessation said that they were ceasing military operations.
One can say that the IRA's cessation is intact only if one accepts that the present actions of the IRA are not military operations. The organisation is carrying out beatings, shootings and killings. One can say that there is not a breach of its cessation only if one classifies those beatings, shootings and killings as not being military operations; and that is what the Chief Constable described on 15 January as a "distorted, perverted view". So the view that the Secretary of State expressed at the Dispatch


Box today is tenable and justified only on the basis of what the Chief Constable has described as a "distorted, perverted view".
I cannot judge what the Chief Constable has said to the Secretary of State in private, but only what he has said in public. He has described the only possible basis of the view that the Secretary of State has expressed as distorted and perverted.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: The right hon. Gentleman makes a thoroughly compelling case. Anyone who does not live in Wonderland knows perfectly well that there has indeed been a breach. Will he tell the House what, in his view, would be the consequences for the Good Friday agreement if the proposal of the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), that the release of terrorist prisoners be slowed down, were carried out?

Mr. Trimble: That is the primary issue we are debating today and, if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall develop my argument as I wish, although I shall deal with that serious point in turn.
The second matter that has been mentioned is the question of evidence and how one should act. By the end of the Secretary of State's speech, we were beginning to get a clear picture of the position, which is quite simple. To bring criminal proceedings in court, one needs evidence in the normal way; that evidence is difficult, albeit not impossible, to obtain and few prosecutions have been brought. However, what we are debating today is entirely different: it is a question of the exercise of a discretion under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
That Act refers to several criteria and gives the Secretary of State a discretion. That discretion has to be exercised on some reasonable basis and with regard to the existing circumstances but, in exercising that discretion, the Secretary of State is not limited in any way to legally admissible evidence; and she is entitled to have regard to the commonly known circumstances in Northern Ireland. In addition, she ought to have regard to the information that reaches her from the police and the security services.
If the police are saying to the Secretary of State, as the Chief Constable has said to the public, that those organisations, as organisations, are involved in acts of violence, there is clearly a sufficient basis in law under that Act for her to act. I repeat, if the Secretary of State is receiving from the Chief Constable an assessment that is consistent with what he says in public, under the Act there is sufficient material to enable her to exercise her discretion to slow down, halt temporarily or even take more comprehensive action in respect of prisoner releases. There is no doubt whatsoever about that.
We need to be clear. Those who talk about there being no evidence are obscuring the picture. They might not fully understand the situation, but they are focusing on the wrong point. We must focus instead on the discretion that the Secretary of State has under the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act and that she can exercise. I note that she said a few moments ago that, if there was evidence against organisations, she would act. I trust that that is the case.
In the current situation, "evidence" does not solely mean legally admissible evidence; the term includes the intelligence that the Secretary of State receives from the

police, the Army and the security services. The right hon. Lady would have great difficulty convincing anybody in Northern Ireland that she is not in receipt of intelligence that indicates that the organisations are involved in acts of violence.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I can confirm that the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has personally stated to me on several occasions that he has not the slightest doubt that the Provisional IRA and the UVF are responsible, as organisations, for the vast number of beatings, shootings and mutilations that are carried out in the communities they dominate.

Mr. Trimble: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for reinforcing what we all know to be true and what the Chief Constable has stated publicly. The Chief Constable has made similar comments to my colleagues and me on a number of occasions. We cannot know exactly what has passed between the Chief Constable and the Secretary of State, but we have difficulty reconciling what we have been told here with statements that are in the public domain.
My third point relates to what would happen if the suggested action were carried out. I regard as chilling the suggestion made by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State that, if prisoner releases were slowed down or stopped, the agreement would collapse. It is appalling to suggest that that is the state of affairs. Prisoner releases are part of the agreement, but they are part of the whole, which includes an end to violence and decommissioning. That is why, in the legislation last year, the Government linked releases to decommissioning and an end to violence. If the Government say that they fear that slowing down prisoner releases will jeopardise the agreement, they are saying that the republican and other terrorist organisations can rewrite the agreement at will and that they can continue their illegal activities, including beatings and killings, with impunity. That is an appalling state of affairs to have reached.
The statements made last week and repeated this week chill the heart of many people in Northern Ireland. We have been here before. We were here a year ago. The present situation is similar to the situation then. We know what the terrorists are doing. They are trying to push out the envelope and see how far they can go. They are trying to lay a basis for an attack on the RUC later in the context of the Patten report. They are also trying, as they did a year ago, to unnerve Unionists and bounce them out of the process.
I remember the killings last year by Direct Action Against Drugs. The Secretary of State twisted and turned, trying to avoid what was obvious and tried to avoid taking action against republicans. Eventually, after a murder in Dunmurry, action became unavoidable and the Government screwed themselves up to take action. They excluded Sinn Fein from the talks, regrettably only for two weeks. I ask the Secretary of State to recall the positive consequences that flowed from acting last year. The tap turned off. The DAAD killings stopped. We had a more positive and serious attitude inside the talks, and that contributed to the agreement.
The terrorists are pushing out the envelope again. They are testing the Secretary of State's resolve. So far, she has not shown any resolve or willingness to tackle the


situation. If she continues to allow the terrorists to push her around, the challenge that will face us all in another month or two will be more difficult. If she follows the good precedent of last year, when the Government resolved themselves to act after the DAAD killings, she will find that the next month or two will go more smoothly.
I hope that the Secretary of State knows that I hope that we manage to maximise the opportunities for society that the agreement presents. I welcome what the right hon. Member for Bracknell said about the need to maximise and take forward the opportunities. The Secretary of State knows that my colleagues and I will make any effort that can be made to carry those opportunities forward successfully.
The Secretary of State should also know that many people in Northern Ireland who have invested hope in the agreement also have a nightmare. The nightmare is that the paramilitary organisations, rather than turn their backs on violence and cross over into democratic society and thus create a new situation in Northern Ireland in which people can live together at ease, will come into the process and corrupt it, continue with their violence and continue the dominance and racketeering that not only affects estates in certain parts of Northern Ireland but goes much wider than that. People have a nightmare that they will then see the very heart of society become corrupted. That nightmare is reinforced by the fear that the RUC will be so emasculated that it is incapable of acting to restrain the paramilitaries.
The paramilitaries have grown quite arrogant and confident. One has only to look at the behaviour of some of their political spokesmen to see that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound by the 15-minute rule.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: May I first put in context the remarks that I want to make this evening, and have been making for many years, about violence and all its manifestations. I personally abhor the violence that is under discussion today, all violence that has taken place and the mindset that encourages people to use violence for political means.
Sometimes it is necessary to repeat that because, when one listens to debates, particularly on this issue, it is as though there are different rungs on a ladder corresponding to one's own rectitude or self-righteousness on the issue. However, that has not permeated this debate. I have seen no evidence of the self-righteousness or self-indulgence that is sometimes displayed on this issue. There is genuine concern, which I share. It is right that the issue is debated and that Members are able to put their views, and I have no problem with that.
I also have no problem with coupling my remarks with a gentle word of advice for our discussion on punishment beatings. To lob a petrol bomb through people's window when they are in bed is also a punishment, and it can be lethal. There have been a number of such incidents over the past few weeks. I also gently remind the House that, sometimes, the real punishment meted out by paramilitary

groups in the north of Ireland is not physical. People, especially the young, are put under different psychological pressures in a way that is devised to protect the turf, influence or corrosive power of paramilitary groups in their organisations.
I question the wisdom of the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. If that motion were passed and implemented, how would a Secretary of State and a Prime Minister solve the problems of such brutality? How would passing the motion, with the best and most sincere motives, solve the problems? How would that change even the context in which the problems should be solved? Would we or others be debating more and more of those acts of barbarity or different acts of barbarity? I am opposed to the motion for that and other reasons.
The motion has a subterranean political context, which is already evident. Is it not the supreme irony that, at a time when the business and process of politics has been re-established in the north of Ireland, all concentration is on violence? One would have hoped that, in the context of the new agreement, the new beginning and the new approach, we could have been debating other issues—mundane issues, perhaps—such as education, welfare, carers or young people.
Another irony is that when, for the first time in the past 30 years—the lifetime of most people in the north of Ireland—we have a future, concentration on that will be overshadowed again by acts of barbarity. Ask anybody what is happening in the north of Ireland.

Ms Helen Southworth: The hon. Gentleman might be aware that I asked the Library to research Opposition day debates on Northern Ireland in the previous Parliament. I am concerned because bipartisanship is very important to people in the peace process, and I recognise the importance of that process to people in Northern Ireland. The only Opposition day debate on Northern Ireland held during that time was the joint SDLP, UUP and Conservative Members' debate on the Northern Ireland economy. Is that the sort of debate that the hon. Gentleman wants to happen?

Mr. Mallon: I thank the hon. Lady for that valuable interjection.
It is right to point out that, at a time when the primacy of politics and the political process should be establishing itself apace, the political process is actually partially dormant. What is the focus of concentration? It is the acts of barbarity, a throwback from the past; it is the violence that we have lived with for so long. As politicians, we have to ask ourselves how, in effect, the business of violence is overcoming the business of the political process in circumstances in which the political process should be leading in every sense.
We can ask the same question about the will of the people of the north of Ireland, expressed in a vote of 72 per cent. in the referendum on the agreement. Is that will the will that is being heard in this debate? Is that the will that has been heard in media terms, or is it the will—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The motion deals with good order, but we do not have good order in the Chamber. Let us have good order.

Mr. Mallon: I am sure that extra time will be added, as they say.


The reality is that, by carrying out punishment beatings, or whatever we want to call them, those with hoods—the faceless people—are able to grab attention in a way that the legitimate political process is not. Let us not all fall into the trap that is being set by those in paramilitary organisations.
I am asked whether the passing of this motion would end the brutality. If the release of prisoners were ended, would that end those acts of brutality? I do not believe that it would; I do not believe that any hon. Member believes that it would; and I do not believe that there is anyone in the House who does not believe that, in those circumstances, it would be the next excuse for a vast escalation of the type of violence that we have seen down the years.
I agreed with the Prime Minister when he said—or implied—that, if one breaks one of the key provisions of the Good Friday agreement, the agreement is in effect broken and finished with. If that is the case, what is the vehicle to be used to solve the problem of these beatings? What, then, is the vehicle to solve the issue of decommissioning? Let us ask ourselves that and answer ourselves truthfully—there is no vehicle left for the political process.
Of course, there will be those who say that we can solve the problem through policing. If it could have been done that way, those who are carrying out the attacks would have been behind bars long ago, and we all know that. Could it be done with new security measures? They have been tried for 30 years, and the problem has not been ended. Could it be done with new legislation? All of us should think what legislation that is not on the statute book but that might be on it would solve the problems of violence. Could it be done by political exclusion? If that is the feeling and the mood in some quarters, I warn that to exclude people from the political process is not the way to wean them from violence and arms.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon: I have limited time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, and I want to finish my contribution. I always give way, but not this time.
The motion presents the House with a choice: we can swap the agreement, with all its difficulties, for another political vacuum. By so doing, we acknowledge the failure of our political process and throw away the keys—the keys to our future, the keys to peace. We throw those keys inexorably into the hands of the leaders of all the paramilitary groupings. Is that we want to do? Can we do it? Can we even contemplate it?
Right at the core of the Good Friday agreement is a crucial fact that is often overlooked. The central importance of the agreement is the fact that, for the first time since partition, the people of Northern Ireland—Unionist and nationalist—agreed how they would solve constitutional, political and social issues. They agreed to solve them by peaceful means, through the political process, for the first time since partition. It took almost 80 years to get to that point. To throw that out and to throw the keys away would jeopardise any hope for the future. I cannot contemplate the House doing that, and I do not believe that it will.
I want to make one last point in relation to the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State and the Minister of State. All the issues surrounding violence in the north of Ireland

are highly sensitive. We can all bleed within ourselves about them, and we can all blame everybody. I want to put on record my admiration for the courage, the compassion and the concern shown by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram). I get tired listening to them being bashed.
Those are the people at the coal face, soaking up the vitriol that comes in their direction—for doing what? For doing exactly what I agreed they should do when my party signed the agreement, and for doing what other parties asked them to do when they signed the agreement, and for standing as a bulwark between the political process and the future, and a return to the awful past that we have experienced for so long.
I want that to be put on the record, because it is grossly unfair that, when we charge the Secretary of State and her Ministers to pursue a line of policy contained in an agreement that we have reached, we start to complain and bitterly, publicly hold those people to ransom because they have carried out their commitment to that agreement.
I ask the House not to put at risk the consensus that exists, however tenuous it may be. However difficult it is, do not risk it—the risk is far too high. At risk is the future, and future generations who will have to live with it. Do not make this or any other issue a make-or-break issue for the agreement. Agreements are much more easily broken than created.
I have spent the years from Whitelaw to Mowlam in negotiations. That is only one part of one lifetime. Do we start again on another 30 years of negotiation, to try to reach the point where we are now, or do we preserve it, with everything under our control? We should never make this issue—I know that it has not been made so—a party political one. I recognise that it has not because people feel deeply about it. If we start playing with an agreement, which had to be created and took so long and so much effort from so many people to create, we are playing with fire. And that fire will be not just the awful barbarism of the beatings that have occurred, but the type of violence that we all know exists.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: I shall suggest another way of looking at the issue, detaching the political element from the criminal behaviour. I shall be interested to hear what other hon. Members think about the suggestions that I make. At the very least, I hope that I provide a different perspective.
I add my tribute to Families Against Intimidation and Terror and other organisations that try so hard to help victims of organised assaults and, on occasions, even stand up to those who perpetrate the crimes. If it were not for the likes of Vincent McKenna, who showed great courage and determination in ensuring that there are several directions in which victims can turn, the situation could be unimaginably worse than the very grave circumstances in which they find themselves at the moment.
Let us be clear that the term "punishment beatings" has been put to rest today. I certainly agree with the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) that "punishment beatings" is an inappropriate term. Perhaps we shall no longer hear it used in the Chamber. We are talking of organised assaults; simple criminal action in a criminal


underworld which has no legitimacy on either political or legal grounds. In some ways, the tactics are similar to those used in the Chicago turf wars in the 1930s, when there was great commercial and political unrest among gangsters. We are talking of racketeers who seek, not just to protect a political interest, but to ensure that coercion keeps them at the top of their pile in Northern Irish life.
Let us define what is going on: intimidation, injury and, occasionally, death. Indeed, it sounds as if there has been another tragic death among the people in Northern Ireland. Such events occur in a way that we simply do not see on the mainland, where I imagine that, from time to time, there are localised incidents, but, when they occur, the police come down very hard. As the Conservatives have suggested, such things would not be tolerated on the mainland for any length of time.
It is difficult to assess the incidence of such events in Northern Ireland. The fact that figures—even the statistics quoted today by the Prime Minister and others—vary shows that, due to the intimidation wielded among those who could otherwise come forward to make statements, reliable statistics are difficult to gather. The rule of fear is so great that we cannot know exactly the extent of injuries and problems. I suspect that FAIT' s statistics are pretty accurate because it speaks informally with victims, something that the police cannot always do.
Who is to blame? It is not the Government, the Good Friday agreement or the Royal Ulster Constabulary. Obviously, it is not the victims. The only people who are to blame for these terrible evils are the paramilitaries and others who commit such crimes. It is the perpetrators who should be called to account, not any other groups of people. Our role is not to attribute blame among ourselves in this Chamber, but to ask what we can do to prevent the perpetrators from carrying out their barbaric acts.
On that basis, the Conservatives' proposal is inappropriate. Making a connection between prisoner releases and beatings will not resolve the issue, as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) pointed out.
The important distinction that I seek to make is that it is inappropriate for us to regard the large proportion of the attacks as motivated primarily by politics. They must be regarded as being motivated primarily by nothing more than criminal aspiration—an attempt to coerce a community simply by breaking the law, thereby breaking bones, destroying lives and intimidating individuals, and all that clearly pervades in large areas of Northern Ireland.
To pretend that there is a consistent and specific link between the political peace process and that criminal activity is to misunderstand the solution that we will ultimately have to implement. I draw an analogy with Estonia, a country that I know well and that also experienced enormous political upheavals, as it shifted from being a satellite state in the former Soviet Union to becoming a free and independent state liberated from the Soviet Union.
The KGB, which was primarily a political organ for the former Soviet Union, converted itself into a criminal organisation that was primarily motivated by cash interest and by maintaining the power of those near the top of the organisation. It stopped being a political organisation,

but carried on many of its coercive activities in the criminal interests of those involved. There was a surge in black market activities as well.

Mr. William Thompson: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the criminal activity that is going on is carried out by organisations that were party to the Belfast agreement? Surely what they are doing contradicts what they professed that they would do under that agreement: give up all violence—whether they carried it out for political or other reasons—and take on the democratic process.

Mr. Öpik: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and I shall return to it. I am suggesting that we should look at that issue differently and that it is, in large part, up to us to define the extent to which we should regard the beatings and the intimidation as politically motivated and the extent to which we should regard them as organised crime.
I return to the KGB analogy. The KGB, which was no longer a political organisation, carried on working, as a criminal organisation, in Estonia and elsewhere. The Estonian authorities converted their approach to it into a criminal approach. As a result, they managed to reduce the criminal and coercive activities to a point at which things were much improved.
In the same way, we should seriously consider whether it is now appropriate to detach elements of the activities of those paramilitary organisations from the political process—which I hope will deliver peace—and treat those beatings simply as thuggery and crime. We may have to increase massively investment in the police services to destroy that criminal activity and, at the same time, recognise that there is a distinction in motive. There is not necessarily always a political motive, or a motive associated with the peace process, behind such activities.

Mr. Frank Field: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving away some of his time to allow me to intervene. Although we can accept that each act may be criminal, does he not see that such acts are also part of a political programme? Paramilitaries on both sides want influence over the outcome of the Patten commission. They have a crucial role now; they are increasing the amount of violence to show that certain parts of the Province cannot be policed so that the Patten commission will suggest proposals that would break the national police force. Those activities are criminal, but they are also highly political.

Mr. Öpik: I want to move on to that issue. Although what I have described may take account of a large proportion of the activity that takes place—I sincerely believe that a lot of it is motivated by criminal, not political, interest—it is nevertheless reasonable to assume, as two hon. Members have done, that some activity is politically motivated.
We could have made the whole situation a lot simpler, if we had thought about that at the time of the Good Friday agreement. The issue was considered, but it was not specifically included in the agreement, which is why we now face problems of definition in respect of categorising beatings. In fact, I think we made a mistake; last April, we should have expressed a specific view on


the issue. Still, we could debate that until the cows come home, but we cannot rewrite the agreement. Therefore, the question is merely of historical interest rather than practical application.
We should consider the consequences of accepting that some of those activities might be politically motivated. That is the issue that the Secretary of State must address in deciding what to do about them. If the paramilitary organisations made an overt effort to proceed with their political intentions, and to move towards their stated goals, through coercive means, we would get into a grey area. There might be a case for reassessing everything, from prisoner releases to the status of the Good Friday agreement.
I do not have the same information as the Secretary of State, or as hon. Members from the Province, who are much better informed than I am, so I cannot be sure whether any such move is taking place, but my judgment is that the agreement is—at the moment, at least—maintaining a ceasefire that I can regard as intact and a peace process that is our best hope for peace for more than 30 years.
I recognise that others may have different views. Perhaps Conservative Members and other hon. Members think that the Good Friday agreement has been breached in an unacceptable fashion, but therein lies the path to great danger. The Secretary of State made the point—as did the Prime Minister at Question Time today—that implying that the Good Friday agreement has in some part failed is a much worse option.
Rather than taking that approach, and rather than the Government specifically and overtly showing that the process is failing by slowing down or stopping prisoner releases, we should handle the beatings in a different way. First, we should find a process that would make it easier for victims to come forward with information. I know that that has been said before, and I shall not suggest such a process now; I may not even be able to do so, and certainly could not do that in three minutes. It might be expensive, but we may have to invest in seeking an alternative to what people are faced with at the moment: either silence or the terror of coming forward.
Secondly, we have to accept that implementation of the correct rule of law is an expensive business in the face of racketeers and powerful paramilitary organisations. The Government should say that, whatever the cost, since human liberties are involved, the need to normalise law enforcement in Northern Ireland is so great that this is an area for legitimate additional investment in those communities.
To an extent, there is lack of faith in some of those communities that the law can protect them or even reach them. That has to be dealt with. There are areas where the RUC has a poor profile and, as a result, the mountain that we must climb to institute normal law enforcement activities is great. Nevertheless, the Secretary of State should make a specific commitment, putting this point of principle above cost.
We must consider the political element on an on-going basis. If it looks as though some of those organisations are specifically using beatings and organised assaults to try to further their political aims, we must think long and hard about whether they are breaching the Good Friday agreement. Here, I do not think that we are arguing a point of principle; we are arguing a point of judgment. The view

of the right hon. Member for Bracknell is different from mine, and other hon. Members sitting behind me share a different view, but that is why it is useful for us to have a rational debate.
Where do we go from here? As I have said in the past, there are elements of brinkmanship in the process, and there may be elements of brinkmanship as we seek to turn off the tap on these beatings. We have to be courageous. Once again, the Secretary of State is in the invidious position of attempting to decide how to be tough, what is the most effective way to be tough and what investment should be made to implement a tough policy.
We must recognise that simple solutions, such as slowing or stopping prisoner releases, make a statement without necessarily taking account of the consequences. Such solutions would have the wrong consequences. It is far more difficult to detach some of those activities and put them into the criminal context, assess the others on an on-going basis in a political context, and provide the investment to make sure that both kinds of activity are controlled. But, if we took that more difficult option, I would be fairly confident that we could not only win the respect of communities, but achieve our long-term objective of normalising Northern Ireland.
No one should have to live with those beatings, but we must do nothing that would fundamentally jeopardise the peace process, which has gone a lot further than many of us expected.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Members of the campaign Families Against Intimidation and Terror have visited the House many times since the campaign's inception in 1990, but its visit just before Christmas constituted a major breakthrough.
People in Britain find it difficult to appreciate the degree of intimidation that exists in Northern Ireland estates. That extends to many of my colleagues in the House. The campaign, however, managed to bring a good many people together during its visit, and I think that had some influence.
I agreed to table a number of early-day motions whose content was drawn from information that the campaign supplied about the beatings. The motions, which were signed by members of all political parties, expressed the genuine concern felt by all hon. Members. I went further, however, and tabled another early-day motion suggesting that there should be a link with the issue of the release of prisoners. I argued for a slowing down of their release, rather than for a complete stop, because I thought that many might interpret a complete stop as a breach of the Belfast agreement, and I wanted to avoid that. I accepted that the word "slow" could mean "very slow indeed", and could be understood in that way by the pal-militaries.
As a result of that argument, I have been the subject of favourable comments in editorials in The Daily Telegraph, The Times and The Independent, and have even had an honourable mention from the Leader of the Opposition during Prime Minister's Question Time. I would much prefer to receive support in the editorials of "Socialist Campaign Group News", Tribune and the Morning Star, which reflect my political stance, and I would sooner be praised by the Prime Minister. I may not agree with him about "third way" politics, but I am full


of admiration for all that the Northern Ireland team has done, for the establishment of the agreement and for the role that the Prime Minister has played in the process.
I am trying to encourage and develop that process, and to ensure that it works. I know that the beatings and other troubles in Northern Ireland pose a massive problem, and that the release of prisoners alienates many people there. We must hold on to those people in our support for the process. The problem is probably greater in the Protestant community than in the Catholic community, because the majority in support of the agreement was smaller there. We must try to sustain the position of the Ulster Unionists who are involved in the process, whichever avenue they follow.
I thought that the debate was about the link between punishment beatings and prisoners, but some have suggested that certain people should be excluded from the Assembly. I want to avoid that. If people take on board what is said about so-called punishment beatings, it will be easier for us to advance our views.
I have always argued that we should look for ways in which the paramilitaries can be encouraged to involve themselves in what they call concessions. If the IRA would only tell us where the bodies of the disappeared are, Christian burials could take place. That would represent movement—movement that could be associated with, for instance, the ending of exile. It has been said that we do not want politicians in Northern Ireland to be exiled, but many people are exiled from Northern Ireland. They cannot return until the beatings stop; even if they are told that they can, they will not feel safe. The involvement of paramilitary groups in smuggling and protection rackets also needs to be tackled.
If we can achieve some movement in the areas that I have mentioned, the prize will be concessions in terms of decommissioning, which is the major issue. A small amount of decommissioning would be fantastic, because it would be contrary to all the IRA's traditions. When people were told to rob a bank in order to get some guns to engage in future terrorist activity, they would say "Get lost. You have given the guns away." Those are serious issues, and the concern of Families Against Intimidation and Terror is justified.
Nancy Gracey, who helped to set up the campaign, was involved with Protestant families although she was a Catholic. She had experienced similar problems to theirs. She began by looking for support. One of my proudest memories is of seeing her on television with an early-day motion of which she was obviously proud. I had tabled the motion, congratulating her on the establishment of the campaign. It has taken a long time for the campaign to reach centre stage, and to be mentioned other than in parliamentary questions and Adjournment debates. It is not alone, however: there are many other worthwhile organisations, many of which receive Government funding.
I have a problem with the Government amendment. I have no problem in voting for it, because it expresses all the right sentiments, but where does it go after that? Citrine—whom we in the Labour movement often quote—might describe it as pious. It contains no proposal or strategy for the ending of punishments. Whatever may

be wrong with the Opposition motion and my suggested amendment, at least they involve some sort of strategy, albeit perhaps inappropriate or weak.
We all support what has been done by the Northern Ireland Office, and the recent discussions with the leaders of the three political parties in the Assembly. They have laid it on the line. However, we want solid progress: we want all the stops to be pulled out. People in Northern Ireland need that more than anyone else. They need to be drawn into the process.
Although the Opposition are allowing us to have a good debate, I do not know what their motion means or why it is there. I fear that it is there because some Opposition Members have threatened to name names in the House, and have pressurised their party into adopting a stronger position. The Conservative leadership has come up with this motion in the hope that such matters will be dropped.
Some Conservatives supported the "No" campaign, and want the agreement to be wrecked. I entirely oppose that position, and oppose Northern Ireland Members who support it, although I agree with them about other matters of a social and economic nature.

Mr. MacKay: Let me put the record straight. The overwhelming majority of Conservative Members fully support the Belfast agreement and the process, as I have clearly outlined. Only a handful do not. There is one simple reason why we tabled the motion, and I think that it has been proved to be worth while from the high standard of the debate: to draw attention to the dreadful plight of those innocent people who are victims of terrorism of the worse sort. I can put the hon. Gentleman's mind at rest.

Mr. Barnes: I am pleased to hear that. I have a suggestion in connection with that: when we get to 7 o'clock, the Opposition should not press their motion because we will have had the debate. They might say, "We have not quite found exactly the deal that gets the paramilitaries to do these things. We are applying our mind to it. We are arguing with the Government about it. We will listen to their responses and we are encouraging a certain development to take place."
I tried with an amendment; obviously, it was not going to be selected. I hoped that the Conservative party might have backed it. I am in no sense jumping on any Conservative bandwagon. In fact, I had a little bandwagon going for about 10 years, although it mainly reflected what Families Against Intimidation and Terror was doing. The Conservative party should come on board in terms of my amendment.
Within politics, there is politicking. Perhaps some members of the Conservative party feel that it would not be all that much of a loss if the process fails because it would do so under a Labour Government, rather than a future Conservative Government. I still want to say many honourable things about certain people in the Conservative party.

Mr. MacKay: We passionately want the agreement and the process to work, but let me explain why, although superficially attracted to the hon. Gentleman's amendment, I feel that there is a problem with it. His proposal would be illegal, as I think the Minister will explain in his winding-up speech. There is only one of


two options. We either do not decertify the various parties, so prisoner releases can continue, or we do. We cannot slow the process down. It is not an option, even though the House might like to have it. It is not possible under the law.

Mr. Barnes: I picked up that there was a problem. Some people seemed to say at first that halting early release, the Opposition's position, was legally possible and that there were problems with slowing it down, as my amendment proposes. However, "slow down" was introduced to try to get around the problem of people saying that halting early release would violate the agreement. Therefore, we can look for something else, but I still think that it would be a great advantage if the Opposition did not press their motion when we come to the end of the debate.
I agree that there are many genuine Conservatives who support the process and who were there at its birth. At the moment, I should be in a meeting of the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs, which is discussing exactly the type of economic and social affairs in which we should be engaged in.
The Chairman is the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke). I know that he is solidly behind the process because he produced the form of words initially that started the whole process going, so those elements are there. Let us have the debate, but not then go further by pressing for a Division. We are looking for matters of substance to try to solve these particular problems.
From a left-socialist position, I always believed that something like the agreement should be established. In the Labour party, we used to have a policy of a united Ireland by consent. It was an inconsistent policy because we could not have a united Ireland by consent; a united Ireland could happen only without consent. It was much more sensible when we developed a position where the parties could be facilitated to come together to agreement.
We nudged the parties on occasions. Headings of agreement were drawn up on what they had said. The two Governments got together to move in that direction, but it always seemed that that was the right sort of thing to do. I have great disagreements with many people who go for centralist politics in relation to economic and social matters—I disagree even with the Prime Minister in connection with those—but when it came to Northern Ireland's constitution or political matters, there was an obvious area for an almost artificial centre.
We have got that going and we have to keep it going, but, at the same time, we have to do things to protect people in communities from being beaten, battered and all the other problems that are associated with that. We should act in ways that assist them to get out of those problems.
I appeal to certain of my colleagues who are very much on the left: if they have any links with Sinn Fein, they should put the strongest pressure that they can possibly on it. We should not be ambivalent in any way about violence or the new violence that is happening now in terms of the beatings, their spread and the fact that there is a political strategy behind them—as well as all the other considerations. It is fully understood that parties are organising to further their own ends in connection with the beatings. We should not have it.
Therefore, we have to look for methods, more police expenditure and improvements, and ask where the peace dividend is going to be spent; there is no peace dividend if we look at the statistics. Those things should be used to create a situation in which we achieve what everyone wants to be achieved.

Mr. Michael Mates: The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) always makes an idiosyncratic and amusing speech. I hope that his political credentials have not been utterly ruined by praise from both The Daily Telegraph and my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Leader of the Opposition, on the same day.
I support wholeheartedly the bipartisan approach and the Good Friday agreement. I think that everyone knows that; I know that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland knows it. However, that does not mean—it is rather offensive to be told this by some Labour Members—that we cannot and must not criticise.
The definitive remark came from the Secretary of State herself. She may remember that, when we appeared on "Question Time" some years ago, when our roles were reversed, I defended a particularly controversial thing that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) had just said. She tore into me, and told me that I was talking rubbish and defending the indefensible, whereupon Mr. Dimbleby said, "But I thought you had a bipartisan process." "Of course we do," she said, "but that does not mean that we cannot criticise the Government when they are wrong." That is what we are doing. There is no discredit in that. I am sure that she will agree.
I hope that the Secretary of State will agree too that, apart from the small print in the Good Friday agreement and all the other bits of legislation that we have had, the words of reassurance that have been spoken by leaders are also important. In the summer, when the releases started—when the process started—there was much concern that the IRA had not moved an inch. To reassure those people who were worried about the process being one-sided, the Prime Minister said clearly and unequivocally, "I shall insist on parallel movement through all stages of the agreement."
In all honesty, that remark should be withdrawn. There has been no parallel movement. One side has been totally stationary, while the other side—the Government—have pressed ahead, honouring the letter and spirit of the agreement. I do not criticise that, but there must come a time when the Prime Minister has to say either, "I do not insist on parallel movement any longer," or "There is none and I am going to stop moving until someone catches up."
It is an illogical statement to have made as it simply has not been applied by the IRA in any way, shape or form. It is not particularly honest for that remark still to be on the record if the time of it has passed.
I come to another remark, which was made by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, to which I noticed the Secretary of State shake her head. He asked what the Prime Minister was doing saying that, if prisoner releases stopped, that would be the end of the Good Friday agreement. He said that last week and I thought that he said it again this week.


Last week my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said:
Is it not time that we put on hold the release of convicted terrorists, when they have not yet given up a single gun or bomb?
The Prime Minister answered by saying:
The right hon. Gentleman is, in effect, asking us to bring the whole Good Friday agreement to an end."—[Official Report, 20 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 901–902.]
That is at the heart of the matter. It would bring the Good Friday agreement to an end. That is what Mr. Adams and Mr. McGuinness have threatened. They have said that if there is a slowdown or deviation in anything that the Government do, the whole thing is off. They are proceeding by implied threat while doing absolutely nothing. They are trying to bring the blame for any breakdown upon the Government and not themselves.
Nobody has yet called their bluff. The Secretary of State was, uncharacteristically, wringing her hands on the radio this morning when she said, "I could not do anything about it even if I wanted to." That is a counsel of despair. She will run out of options if she continues with this line. All the prisoners will be out and not one bullet, one bomb or one gun will have been handed in. What will she do then? Will she say, "Isn't it dreadful. They have not done anything. We have another year under the agreement and we will press on"? If that happens, the beatings will continue, as will the punishment and the violence, which has not decreased. The right hon. Lady will have lost what I see as her only card in restraining them and calling their bluff. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has tabled the motion. We have had a useful debate.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Mates: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I have only a short time and I have another point to make.
We now have a situation in which the Government are proceeding with the agreement in letter and spirit, and the IRA are not proceeding with the agreement in either letter or spirit. Even worse, there are implied threats day after day, week after week, that they will not be told when they have to move in the direction in which the Prime Minister has insisted and on which the spirit of the Good Friday agreement is based.
The crunch will really come over decommissioning. The Secretary of State continues to say that it has to happen because it is in the agreement. The IRA and Sinn Fein continue to say—I believe them—that it will not happen under any circumstances. At the start of this process, Mr. McGuinness said that there would be, "Not one bullet." Mr. Adams keeps saying that the, "IRA is still there." The Ard Fheis held by the IRA general council or army council—whatever it is called—said that the IRA would not give up its arms or surrender its weapons under any circumstances.
Why are we in any doubt that the IRA means that? Why do we keep saying, "It is in the agreement so it will have to happen"? The leaders of the IRA are not in a position—I doubt they would be willing anyway—to force the IRA to hand over their weapons. They do not

want to do it because of their attitude of no surrender, which is always in the thoughts of the IRA. It will not happen.
What will happen when the time comes, according to the agreement, for the setting up of the Executive? Will the right hon. Member for Upper Bann have to go back on his declared intention not to sit down with those people until they have made a move in that direction? I do not believe that that is a tolerable position for him. I do not think that his party or his people would let him do it and I would think less of him if he did. That is the position that has been taken not just by the leadership in this place, but by all right-thinking people and all the people in Northern Ireland who voted for the agreement. They voted for both parties to move out of the impasse in which they have found themselves.
We have had no movement whatsoever. If the Government do not take some action to call that bluff, the right hon. Lady will probably say, "It is not down to me. I am afraid it is down to the Ulster Unionists." That is what the IRA is already saying. It is saying that it is the intransigence of the Ulster Unionists that is causing the problems in the setting up of the Executive.
I know that the Secretary of State takes her responsibilities seriously. She must not just sit back, wring her hands and say that she cannot do anything about it. The crunch will come on 10 March. Perhaps we can delay that, but we cannot delay it indefinitely because the day will not come when the IRA will decommission its weapons. It has said that clearly and unequivocally.
Such cards as the Government had in what was a skilful and difficult series of negotiations are being dropped one by one. The right hon. Lady needs to take note of the genuine concerns that have been raised on both sides of the Chamber. The time is running out. She must not go on pandering to the IRA—I do not use that word lightly—allowing the wives of IRA killers to come in and see Ministers and providing more money for the resettlement of prisoners than for the victims of crimes.
I know what the right hon. Lady is doing. She is trying to persuade them that our cause—hers and mine—is genuine. It is genuine, but it needed some persuading at the beginning. With respect, I suggest to the Secretary of State that the boot is now on the other foot. She must start persuading decent Unionists that her determination to make the terrorist organisations honour the agreement is just as strong as her determination to honour it herself. If she does not do that, I fear that what set out to be an exciting adventure may end in tears.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in the debate. I shall be brief, so that other hon. Members can contribute. The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) moved the motion in an eloquent and emotive way. He described graphically the trauma, torture and torment suffered by individuals and families. He gave us a litany of data about the terrorist offences visited on those people and on the communities.
At every Northern Ireland debate in the House since last Easter, whether it was on the Northern Ireland Bill, the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill or any other opportunity, I have tried to make the point consistently that the communities in Northern Ireland, even those that


are totally opposed to violence, have endured and suffered violence for over a generation—30 years. I have urged the House to consider the fact that it would not be possible by any agreement to switch off immediately the use of violence for political and personal purposes because such violence is endemic in certain parts of our community. That does not mean that we excuse or condone it. There is not a single person in the House, the country or Ireland who, in civilised terms, would condone or excuse any act of violence that has taken place.
Those of us who live in those communities can see a complex pattern of what is happening. Many of the beatings are rooted purely in criminality. That does not mean that they are different or that people suffer any less. Many of the beatings involve people mixed up in the drugs racket, the protection racket or in territorial claims. Some of them are personal vendettas, many of which can be superficial. It may be that the godfather's car has been damaged and he sends out the thugs and hoods to teach someone a lesson.
That is what much, although not all, of this is about. The sinister fact to which I want to draw the House's attention is that that is the habitual criminality that our society has to address from now on. We must show that we are determined to work together. We must show leadership in delivering a civilised society based on good social and economic order if we are to cut that cancerous growth out of our society once and for all. Basically, that is what the agreement is about. It is about living together for the betterment of our communities.
I have no evidence, but I suggest that there may be another agenda. Paramilitary influences in Northern Ireland are very complex. I am convinced that some of the beatings and killings are aimed at discrediting those elements of the paramilitary organisations and their political representatives who are in favour of a continuing ceasefire, even if they cannot yet deliver all that is required of them. There are certainly elements in the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force or the Ulster Defence Association—we can give them any name that we like; I could name 10 or more paramilitary organisations that most people have not heard of—that are committing acts of violence. Their purpose is to drive us towards doing what the motion asks.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell referred eloquently to the tragic event this morning involving Eamon Collins just outside my constituency. My information is that he was killed in a hit and run accident. That may be true, but assessing the situation without evidence risks inflaming the situation. Some of those involved in paramilitary beatings and killings are trying to drive the agreement on to the rocks.
People knew that we were going to have this debate but, far from there being a reduction in such incidents, they have escalated. That may be a coincidence, but I doubt it. The purpose is to drive us towards the decision that the motion calls for.
Let us consider the practicality of stopping the release of prisoners. The Secretary of State can do that, given the proper evidence. So what? It would not have much effect on paramilitaries' attempts to control communities by beatings, maimings and killings. We have to address that in a more difficult, more complex and, unfortunately, longer-term way. That requires strong local government by local people.
There is a political agenda. Almost the entire speech of the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) was a political contribution. It was about not the criminality of what is happening, but the political drive behind it. He put decommissioning in an interesting context. The debate process is part of the decommissioning debate. The parties in Northern Ireland who support the Good Friday agreement and the 18 December agreement, on the bodies to be established, are within 20 days—I hope; the relevant date should be 15 February—of signing up to that. Decommissioning has been put up as an obstacle to that. I shall not argue the pros and cons of that debate today. I want total decommissioning, but I also want the complete dismantling of all paramilitary organisations for ever. It does not concern me that a gun is buried in a pit somewhere if no one goes to that pit and gets the gun to use it against someone in my community. As I said in an earlier debate, we could put a gun on the Table in the Chamber and come back in 1,000 years, during which it would have done no harm if the human element had not touched it. We must be careful not to exclude that possibility.
We are 20 days away, in my hopeful opinion, from a major breakthrough. There is a difficult balance to strike between those elements of the paramilitaries that are trying to destroy the agreement, which has been carefully nurtured and brought to this point, and other elements that are trying to sustain a ceasefire and keep the process going with their political representatives.
That is a judgment. I have no hard evidence on who is in one camp and who is in the other. It is just an observation and an interpretation of what is happening around me in my community. Today's debate is not dangerous, but it would be dangerous for the motion to be passed or used as ammunition by the paramilitary opponents of the agreement to disrupt the process further. The exclusion of some members who were elected to the Assembly from participating in the democratic process would be equally dangerous. Whether we like them or dislike them is irrelevant; they have been voted in under the terms of the law that was passed by the House. There are many people whose history I know and do not like, but I have to work with them. That is the price that we have to pay for peace in Northern Ireland. I am prepared to work with them on the understanding that there has been at least an element of conversion that has given us a prospect of establishing an enduring peace in our community. I am a middle-aged man and I have not known enduring peace in my lifetime. We are aiming at a prize beyond compare.
We should not give ammunition to those who are trying to destroy the agreement by violence or by putting up obstacles in the political process to prevent us from coming to the conclusion that I hope for on 15 February. The right hon. Member for Bracknell said that the purpose of the debate was to draw attention to an evil cancer in our society. That is right and proper, and I have no problem with it; but if he is just drawing attention to the issue, he cannot follow that by asking the Government to stop prisoner releases, because that would immediately give the paramilitaries who oppose the agreement an excuse to take a dominant position and re-establish violence in our society. I sincerely hope that the motion will be withdrawn.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The events since the Omagh bombing and the increase in paramilitary attacks have shown how Governments react to such atrocities. First there is a general outcry, in which everyone joins, and solemn pledges are made by political leaders that the perpetrators will be hunted down ruthlessly. In the case of Omagh, our Prime Minister and Mr. Ahern responded with so-called draconian legislation, even suggesting that suspected bombers would be gaoled—on the word of a senior police officer alone, if necessary. We have had the Prime Minister's word and it is not enough. We have seen the special powers and they are useless. Those who carried out the Omagh atrocity walk free.
You will remember the recall of Parliament, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You will remember the strong words that were spoken and the fact that, in Dail Eireann, the new offence of directing terrorism was introduced, with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. When the threat died down and the survivors' suffering no longer reached the front pages, the condemnatory words evaporated, and little has changed.
The laws that were to have the terrorists quaking in their boots have failed. They are laughing. Suspects flout the new laws, which are either ineffective or unused. Paramilitaries are getting out of gaol and some of them are very much behind what is going on. In January, we heard that some of the prisoners released had been charged with new offences.
The Belfast agreement, which brought about their release, promised that the gun would be taken out of Irish politics and that the gunmen would be banished. That has not happened. The Prime Minister acknowledged today that it was not a perfect peace, yet we were told that it would be.
Many other released prisoners are suspected of involvement in the wave of attacks, including arson and intimidation, that has beset Northern Ireland. We have heard a catalogue of what is taking place. In my constituency, a move is afoot to put the gangsterism out of control and demoralise the police. I think that it was the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who said that the RUC was being hit and that pressure on the Constabulary was encouraging the commission to move.
Some think that the wild men, as they are called, have suddenly come into being; but the wild men of the Republican movement, and of other movements, have not suddenly come into being. They are there today because of the failure of Governments to deal with terrorism and to put it down.
Some of us will remember that, 23 years ago, there was a massacre in Kingsmills. It sparked off one of the greatest revulsions against terrorism that I have seen in the Province. Ten Protestants were gunned down in cold blood when the bus in which they were travelling was stopped by an armed gang. An 11th Protestant, Alan Black, survived, but was maimed for life. The only Roman Catholic on board escaped with his life after the killers told him to flee.
At that time, we were told that steps would be taken to bring those responsible for the atrocity to trial. If the Government of that day had done their duty and gone after those men ruthlessly, we would not be reaping other atrocities, and perhaps we would not even have had the sorrow of Omagh. There are hard men in the republican

movement who can fly flags of convenience whenever they like. I believe that the IRA leadership condones their actions, and allows them to return to the ranks after a time. There are all sorts of flags of convenience.
It is interesting to note that a police dossier carefully prepared on the Kingsmills massacre has recently come to light. It shows that the police did thorough work, had definite evidence and could, if they had been encouraged, have got men into the courts; but that did not happen. Now we are told by the police officer investigating the Omagh atrocity that he knows the identity of the bombers but he cannot secure a conviction.
The Tullyvallen massacre, another terrible atrocity, was thought to be the work of some group calling itself the South Armagh Republican Action Group; but that, too, was undoubtedly a cover name for a gang of cross-border PIRA terrorists. The fact must be faced that, under the surface, there are those who are ready to act, whose actions will be condoned and who will probably be reincorporated into the republican movement after they have acted.
There is something seriously wrong with any country—and any Government—that permits known killers to walk the streets with impunity while their victims lie in cold graves. The fact that the killers could operate both inside and outside the IRA name, according to political circumstance, is no comfort to the community. It is an indictment of the Government's and the legal system's failure to address the problem.
The documents that I have mentioned reveal that top PIRA players are free to operate as PIRA, or under any other name during times of ceasefire, in the knowledge that they will be accepted back into the PIRA fold when they are required. The futility of those who believe that the IRA ceasefire is foundation enough on which to build the peace process stands exposed.
According to the dossier, Eugene Reavey, a well-known republican,
set up the Kingsmills massacre
and transported Malachy McParland to the site. It says that Brendan Ferris of Drumcraw was seen to be diverting traffic away from the Kingsmills crossroads before the tragedy took place. It says:
Ferris is sourced as being seen in the area of the massacre shortly before it took place.
The dossier says:
The same terrorists are involved in these incidents
under a cover name for a gang of cross-border PIRA terrorists. It says that some of those people are
implicated in the Drummacravall shooting, the murder of CPL. Frazer, and possibly the murder of McNeice and Gibson.
It refers to Michael Thomas Brannigan,
formerly of McKinley Park Tullyvallen. He has been reported several times for his involvement in explosions and shootings.
The dossier says that on 31 December 1975,
at Road House",
near Jonesborough,
14 PIRA men were holding a meeting—Michael McKevitt, Tony Magill, Brian Smith and 11 others were there.
Those are well-known PIRA men. It says that the Kingsmills ambush was
carried out by some of the top PIRA…Brian Smith, Arnold White, Brian Hearty, Michael Brannigan, Tony Magill.


All that information is authenticated in the police document, which also names T. G. McVerry, Joe McSharry, Michael O'Hare, Jim Feehan, the Markey brothers, Peter McCann and the Loughran brothers as having good knowledge of what took place on that dreadful day.
The dossier says that Aiden McKeown of Whitecross and F. Mcllhaw of Camlough were there as witnesses and that a blue van containing the PIRA terrorists was driven by Michael Coburn of Blackwatertown as part of the ambush and that another Ford Cortina was driven by F. Cullen. All those facts were set out, yet nothing was done, and the men walk free.
The problem with the Government's strategy is that only a knave and a fool would believe that a few places in government handed to Sinn Fein-IRA will secure for us a long-term peace. It will do nothing of the kind. To put Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness into government is not the way to get peace. It is a way to give them even greater force to carry out their objective—to destroy Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom.
Sooner or later, the IRA-Sinn Fein movement will want its appetite thoroughly quenched by further concessions. None of this will secure peace, stability or reconciliation. There is no prospect whatever of securing the disarmament of weapons, or the break-up of the paramilitaries.
Theodore Roosevelt said in one of his addresses:
Peace is normally a great good and normally it coincides with righteousness. But it is righteousness and not peace which should bind the conscience of any nation as it should bind the conscience of an individual. Neither a nation or an individual can surrender conscience to another's keeping.
In Northern Ireland today, we are in danger of being victims of surrendering righteousness, justice and truth to a process that only promises a peace that it will fail to deliver, as it has failed up to this date.

Mr. Martin Salter: I rise to speak as a Member of this House, a member of the Northern Ireland Affairs Select Committee and a supporter of, and campaigner for, the Good Friday agreement. It is a shame that the modernisation process of this House has not advanced sufficiently to allow us to have time to debate on the Floor of the House some of the excellent reports that are produced by all Select Committees. I look forward to that day.
If hon. Members were to read the report on the RUC by the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), they would have a better understanding of the linkage between the policing problems in a acutely divided society—or perhaps more accurately, in sections of an acutely divided society—and what is euphemistically called summary justice. I prefer to call it criminal assault, as would all hon. Members.
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I want to state clearly that I carry no flag for either republicanism or unionism. I am a socialist—we are still allowed to be socialists in the Labour party—and my comrades and I often take a cynical view of politicians who wrap themselves in national flags. It is often a substitute for coherent political analysis and argument. As the right

hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) pointed out, the poor bloody infantry are often sold down the river when flags become a substitute for political analysis.
One cannot ignore the constitutional question, but I long for the day when, in Northern Ireland—and perhaps throughout the island of Ireland—we can discuss politics that transcend the constitutional questions. I hope that we can talk about schools, hospitals and jobs—the bread and butter of politics. I hope that we can discuss the tension between left and right, and arguments in favour of individualism or collectivism. I long for a kind of politics that defines people by what they are and by what they believe in, rather than by what they are not.
The Good Friday agreement has given us the best opportunity of securing peace in Northern Ireland for 30 years or more. It involved taking risks and courageous decisions by Members of all parties, in this Chamber and over the water. We are talking about the establishment of an equality commission, cross-border bodies, the Assembly and a policing commission. There are also vexed questions, such as decommissioning and prisoner releases. The agreement is the best hope that we have, and it received overwhelming public endorsement from 72 per cent. of the people in Northern Ireland.
Now is not a time for backsliding. If the British Government cannot deliver their obligations within the agreement, who can? What alternative is there to the Good Friday agreement? History shows us that, when politics and politicians fail—we in this place have often failed the island of Ireland—violence fills the space, and with political violence comes gangsterism. All those aspects bear the hallmark of a dysfunctional society, but only in elements of the north of Ireland. I will return to that point later.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell was right to say that, in Twinbrook, Poleglass, Tiger's Bay or Rathcoole, we are not dealing with the politics of Stow-on-the-Wold or Chipping Norton. An English village green mentality will not do: we must lift our eyes higher. Paramilitary assaults and gangsterism can flourish only when there is a breakdown in the fabric of society—whether engineered or otherwise.
I commend the report on the RUC to the House. It is a valuable contribution towards resolving the problems of policing in Northern Ireland and the problems of no-go areas for the RUC that create the conditions which allow the thugs to operate. It is a matter of deep regret that there is less than wholehearted support for the RUC in many of the working class and inner-city areas of Londonderry-Derry or Belfast, and that is particularly prevalent among the nationalist communities.
The point is acknowledged in the Good Friday agreement—the vast majority signed up to it—which states:
The participants recognise that policing is a central issue in any society … They believe that the agreement provides the opportunity for a new beginning to policing in Northern Ireland with a police service capable of attracting and sustaining support from the community as a whole … They consider that this opportunity should inform and underpin the development of a police service representative in terms of the make-up of the community as a whole.
An independent Commission will be established to make recommendations for future policing arrangements in Northern Ireland including means of encouraging widespread community support".


The Select Committee report highlighted the deep imbalance in the composition of the RUC, with 93 per cent. from the Protestant tradition and only 7 per cent. from the Catholic tradition. The report concluded that there were many reasons for that, including deliberate intimidation of members of the Catholic community who wished to join the Northern Ireland police service or the RUC. An RUC survey, which was appended as evidence, said that 63 per cent. of Roman Catholics
have been subjected to religious/political harassment within the RUC during their career … These levels could be higher as others who had experienced harassment did not reply".
The point I am making is that we cannot discuss the issue of criminal or paramilitary assaults in isolation.

Mr. Robathan: From his vast experience of Northern Ireland and the RUC, could the hon. Gentleman enlighten the House as to what proportion of RUC officers were from the Catholic or nationalist community in 1969, and what proportion of the Ulster Defence Regiment, when it was first established, was Catholic? Why have all those people fallen by the wayside?

Mr. Salter: If the hon. Gentleman cares to read the Select Committee reports, he will find some facts in them. There has been a significant decline in the proportion who consider the RUC representative of the whole community. However, the figures have started to rise since the ceasefire, and we should welcome that.
As much as we may wish to, we cannot discuss the appalling brutality of the paramilitaries and the gangsters in a vacuum. There is an essential connection between the issues that form the building blocks of the Good Friday agreement. Like other hon. Members, I have spoken with victims of assaults, and friends of mine in parts of Belfast who dare to call themselves socialists. I remember well a taxi ride to the airport from a conference during which the driver confided in me that he had been hijacked no fewer than 16 times. His young son had been disabled for daring to do something many teenagers should not do, but do anyway: he experimented with cannabis. That is not summary justice: it is brutality.
Some assaults are political, but there is a flourishing culture of gangsterism. The Select Committee has received evidence of oil smuggling, and of paramilitary involvement in it. Corporal Gary Fenton, a constituent of mine, was the last British soldier to lose his life in Northern Ireland, and that happened when he was challenging smuggling. Crossmaglen has become the oil capital of Northern Ireland; it even rivals Dallas. There is clearly paramilitary involvement in smuggling, and we have received information suggesting that republican paramilitaries may be involved in smuggling, while loyalist paramilitaries are involved in distribution. Again, we can see the clear connection between paramilitary activity and gangsterism.
The Good Friday agreement provides the building blocks on which our hopes for a just and peaceful society in Northern Ireland rest. We cannot cherry-pick the issues that will command tomorrow's headlines. The Opposition could choose many other issues to use as sticks with which to beat the Government, but they are aiming at the wrong target. In attacking the Government tonight,

they are not attacking the thugs. In many ways, they are helping to undermine confidence in the Good Friday agreement.
We have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. Is there really a need to push the matter to a Division?

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: The debate has touched on the reasons why it is important for people to honour the obligations placed on them. The Belfast agreement says clearly, on prisoner releases, that:
Prisoners affiliated to organisations which have not established or are not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire will not benefit from the arrangements
for early release.
What is meant by "complete and unequivocal ceasefire"? For a definition, we can turn to the words of the Prime Minister at Balmoral in Northern Ireland during the referendum campaign. On 14 May 1998, he said:
In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account: first and foremost, a clear and unequivocal commitment that there is an end to violence for good …that, again as the agreement expressly states, the ceasefires are indeed complete and unequivocal".
The Prime Minister goes on to clarify what he means by "complete and unequivocal", by saying:
An end to bombings, killings and beatings, claimed or unclaimed".
It is clear from the words of the Prime Minister that beatings and killings represent breaches of ceasefires. In his view, ceasefires that are complete and unequivocal require an end to such paramilitary activities.
The Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary has said that all the organisations benefiting from prisoner release have been engaged in such activities. Those organisations are, therefore, in breach of complete and unequivocal ceasefire. What did the Prime Minister say when he wrote his pledges to the people of Northern Ireland up on the wall during the referendum? On the prisoner issue, he wrote:
Prisoners kept in unless violence is given up for good.
Those are the Prime Minister's words, in his own handwriting.
The decent people of Northern Ireland are bewildered by the Government's recent actions. The Government say that they will not slow down or halt the release of prisoners in spite of continuing violence. The people of Northern Ireland are saying that the Prime Minister has broken his pledge, and that the Secretary of State is not fulfilling her responsibility to ensure that ceasefires are complete and unequivocal.
If the ceasefires do not meet the Prime Minister's own definition of "complete and unequivocal", the Secretary of State has the responsibility, placed on her by the House in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998, to review the release of paramilitary prisoners. Yet she says that releases will continue, implying that, if she halted that release, the paramilitaries would go back to full-scale terrorist violence. In other words, she is being held to ransom by the paramilitary organisations. That is the only conclusion that I and others in Northern Ireland can draw.
Clearly, terrorist organisations have been engaged in violence. The Belfast Telegraph of 24 July, just a few weeks after the Belfast agreement was signed, ran the


headline: "IRA linked to murder". We are talking not only of beatings and shootings, but of murder. Who is to know that the latest murder—that of Mr. Eamon Collins, which appears to have taken place in South Armagh, although we do not yet have the full report—did not have some republican involvement? Many will conclude that there was such an involvement.
What response do we expect from the Government? Is it their policy now to see no evil and hear no evil? Is that their policy on the interpretation of whether there are a complete and unequivocal ceasefires? Did the Prime Minister's word mean anything in the commitments that he gave to the people of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Maginnis: In addition to the clear indication that the IRA is involved, is there any evidence that Sinn Fein is involved? I refer to people such as Martin McGuinness and Gerry Adams. On 1 June, did not the Secretary of State say that she had already said that Sinn Fein and the IRA were inextricably linked? What are the repercussions of that statement for the subject that we are considering?

Mr. Donaldson: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Prime Minister has several times said at the Dispatch Box, as he did at Balmoral, that, in his opinion, the IRA and Sinn Finn are "inextricably linked". They are two parts of one organisation. Sinn Fein, when considered against the context of continuing IRA violence, is in breach of its obligations.
Sinn Fein signed up to the Mitchell principles when it entered the talks process. On punishment beatings and killings, those principles include:
To urge that 'punishment' killings and beatings stop and to take effective steps to prevent such actions.
When the Secretary of State met the leaders of Sinn Fein-IRA, and the Progressive Unionist party and the Ulster Democratic party earlier this week, what answer did they give if she asked them what effective steps they were taking to prevent such actions? In the view of the people who live in the areas where the beatings are taking place—some of them in my constituency—no action is being seen to occur. People hear pious comments from some leaders, but they see no action being taken to prevent the beatings. Clearly, Sinn Fein-IRA and those other parties are failing in their obligations and are in breach of the Mitchell principles.
The release of prisoners is at the heart of the motion. In Northern Ireland, deep concern is felt about the ongoing releases, especially against the backdrop of on-going violence. As the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said in his opening remarks, legislation enacted by this House places an obligation on the Secretary of State to review the situation and to consider whether the organisations that benefit from prisoner releases are engaged in complete and unequivocal ceasefires and have ceased to be involved in any act of violence. The Chief Constable of the RUC has said that they are involved in such acts, yet the right hon. Lady refuses to review, slow down or halt the release of terrorist prisoners. Unfortunately, that is because the threat of violence is holding back the Government from acting in the democratic interests of the people of Northern Ireland.
The people voted for the agreement by a majority, but they voted for an end to violence. That is not happening and it is the Government's responsibility to ensure that it

does. If not, they must hold the terrorists to account. Let there be no more appeasement. We want the Government to take a firm line against the terrorist organisations and to halt the release of prisoners—whether they are loyalists or republicans does not matter, because both sides are engaged in the violence. Opposition Members condemn the violence unequivocally wherever it emanates from. The Government must bring the consequences to bear on all those organisations.

Mr. Malcolm Moss: This has been an important debate for several reasons. First, it is the first time in a long time that the needs, requirements and fears of the people of Northern Ireland, who are on the receiving end of those terrible atrocities, have been expressed and debated in the House. Secondly, it has given the Opposition the opportunity to challenge the Government—rightly, as the Prime Minister agreed at Question Time—on their judgment in this critical situation.
The paramilitaries and their political representatives seem to have a twofold agenda. First, they want to control the estates in Northern Ireland, particularly those in Belfast, so that criminal activity can take place without any police intervention and the racketeering, extortion, drugs peddling and intimidation of those who do not fall into line with those peddling such views can continue. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) put forward that view and asked the Government to differentiate between those and political activities, which is impossible because the same people are perpetrating both the political activities and the acts of terrorism in the estates of Northern Ireland.
As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) pointed out in an intervention, the second part of the agenda is to undermine the Royal Ulster Constabulary by influencing, or trying to influence, the Patten commission on that body. The line will be taken that the RUC is not working on the estates—witness the beatings, shootings and atrocities—and therefore a new police structure is needed. Sinn Fein-IRA and some of the loyalist groups will then propose community policing and we all know who will undertake that—the same paramilitaries who are running the show on the estates at present.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) had an interesting theory that elements within the paramilitary groups who commit the violence, do so for personal motives or as a lever against their leaders to bring them into line, so that they do not make too many concessions. If that is so, why did all those activities stop—on both sides of the sectarian divide—when President Clinton last visited Northern Ireland? In Police Review the Chief Constable of the RUC confirmed:
these organisations have demonstrated an ability to bring such activity to an end when it has suited their purpose".
Several hon. Members implied that our motion was calculated, at best to destabilise and, at worst, to wreck the peace process and the agreement. I assure the House that we want implementation of the agreement in full and that includes a commitment to meaningful decommissioning, an ending of violence and an acceptance of peaceful, law abiding and democratic means to achieve political progress in Northern Ireland.
On 6 May 1998, the Prime Minister said:
It is essential that organisations that want to benefit from the early release of prisoners should give up violence."—[Official Report, 6 May 1998; Vol. 311, c. 711.]
On 14 May 1998, at Balmoral in Belfast, he said that there had to be
an end to bombings, killings and beatings".
Will the Minister tell us whether the Government interpret the ceasefire simply to mean the absence of bombings, rather than including the killings and beatings, which can continue unabated? I do not think for a moment that the voters in Northern Ireland believe that. The people who gave their assent in the referendum certainly did not.
The agreement requires concessions from both sides. From the paramilitary groups, it requires decommissioning and an end to violence. In return, they obtain prisoner releases. If there is no movement on decommissioning or prisoner release, it is likely that all paramilitary prisoners will have been released with no concessions in return. That is unacceptable to Opposition Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Mr. Mates) pointed out so forcefully.
The Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 gives the Secretary of State the power to suspend the prisoner release scheme or to review it. The Prime Minister confirmed that today at Prime Minister's questions, although the right hon. Lady seemed uncertain about it in her interview on the "Today" programme earlier. According to that legislation, she could specify organisations and remove their prisoners from the scheme. Once all the prisoners have been released, the right hon. Lady will have no further negotiating power. She said that she had to decide whether or not there had been a cessation of violence—despite the many sources of security advice—by making a judgment. Again, I shall quote the Chief Constable, who said in a BBC interview:
there is no doubt whatever that all of these organizations"—
referring to the IRA, the Ulster Volunteer Force, the Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters—
including those who purport to be in cessation of military operations, are engaged in this repugnant activity".
The Secretary of State confirmed this evening that she can use her discretion under the 1998 Act. She also confirmed that she had received the Chief Constable's advice—it is in the press and I am sure that she has received it privately. From her conclusions today, are we to interpret her remarks as confirming that, at this stage, she has heard the advice, but chosen to ignore it?
In summary, the motion is not merely to take note of the atrocities but, as the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) said, to offer a strategy that is a way forward and an attempt to curtail and prevent those atrocities from taking place. There is little point in debating those key issues if we do not put the motion to the vote, which is what we shall do.
The Government response in their amendment seems to ignore the facts. We have all met the same people—from FAIT and other communities—who are doing sterling work, which is often dangerous, to give solace, comfort and help to people on the receiving end of those

horrendous and atrocious acts. Intimidation means that many families have to leave Northern Ireland at short notice and be rehoused in mainland Britain.
The Government seem to turn a blind eye to the potentially damaging end game. Their amendment is frankly toothless and offers the House nothing but more of the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out, time is running out.
The fundamental questions are these: first, will the Government accept a position in which all the prisoners have been released, but there is no comparable movement from the paramilitaries on decommissioning or a cessation of violence? We have asked that question a number of times and it has never been answered. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition asked it again during Prime Minister's questions this afternoon and the Prime Minister himself declined to give a straight answer. It really is time that the Minister gave us an unequivocal answer.
Secondly, is the partial implementation of the agreement tolerable to the Government? Can the Minister explain to the House how he and his party expect the smooth operation of a devolved Government when guns remain in the hands of the paramilitaries and violence of the kind that we have discussed today continues unabated? If not, perhaps he can tell us how they hope to obtain movement on those critical issues.
Thirdly, if the agreement has not been implemented in full at the end of two years—we hear time and again from the Government and from the Prime Minister that that is their intention—will the agreement fall? Can it be renegotiated and where will the Government draw a line in the sand, if at all?
The time has come for the Government to face up to the reality on the streets and the estates of Northern Ireland. They need to plan their strategy carefully to achieve the beneficial end game that we all want and to use the law that is at their disposal and that they put on the statute book not a few months ago.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): I shall respond as best I can to all the points that have been raised in the debate. Some of the concluding comments by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) send a clear message. He used the language of defeat and failure. We are trying to build confidence to ensure that difficulties from any direction are faced and an attempt is made to achieve reconciliation and find a solution. The language of defeat saps the confidence of people who have spent more than 30 years in very difficult circumstances. I am glad that my party is in government and the hon. Gentleman's party was removed at the last election.
We have had a wide-ranging and clearly useful debate. It has been useful because the issues and arguments that have been raised tonight from both sides of the House lie at the very heart of understanding the process in which we as a society are involved in Northern Ireland.
As usual, my hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) got to the point at issue with clarity and precision. I thank him for his kind words to myself and my ministerial colleagues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire


(Mr. Barnes) who has a long-term interest in the subject. He robustly argued his point of view and he is right about the specific issue that we have debated tonight. He referred to other areas of concern—such as exiles and the disappeared—that should never be neglected. The Government do not intend to neglect them.
The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) alleged that released prisoners out on licence have been charged since their release. The hon. Gentleman nods in agreement, so I understood him rightly. Not one prisoner who has been released under the scheme has been charged subsequently. The RUC has no evidence that those who were released under the scheme have become re-involved. If such evidence is drawn to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and there has been a breach of licence, clearly the Government would be obliged to take action.
It is true to say that every citizen of the United Kingdom has an interest in achieving a lasting peaceful settlement for Northern Ireland, not least because the terrorist violence over the last 30 years has not been confined to Northern Ireland, but has been visited with tragic effect upon communities and families here in Britain.
It is because of that reality that the country is united behind the Government in what has been achieved to date since the Good Friday agreement last April and what the Government are seeking to achieve for the future with the commitment of the political parties that are signed up to the process and with the support of the overwhelming majority of the people of Northern Ireland.
Everyone in the House, with a few notable exceptions, agrees with those sentiments. The House is also united in its complete and unequivocal condemnation of the spiteful and barbaric paramilitary assaults carried out, for whatever reason, within the various communities that make up Northern Ireland.
All hon. Members who have spoken have expressed in their own way their abhorrence at what these vicious acts mean in human and family terms and the way in which they add to the sum of community division and strife in Northern Ireland. There is not a scintilla of difference between anyone in the House on that point.
The speech by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) gave graphic details of cases in which terrible things were done to individuals. I would caution him about that. It is all very well wallowing in the gory details, but, as one who speaks to many victims of violence in Northern Ireland, I remind the right hon. Gentleman that others out there do not want to hear about such grief and suffering or see it on their television screens. That is why, when the BBC and other responsible journalists show bodies and the effects of terrorist violence, they do their best to contact the families concerned.

Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Ingram: Let me finish my point. The right hon. Gentleman spoke for half an hour. I have just 15 minutes to sum up.
There is a need for sensitivity and I regret that the right hon. Gentleman made such a graphic speech. I shall give way to him and then I shall refer to another point that he made which has been rebutted by one of the families concerned.

Mr. MacKay: Both the victims concerned gave their agreement and went public because they wished the people to know just what had happened. So there has not been any irresponsibility whatever and I suggest that the Minister withdraws those comments, which are a disgrace and quite wrong.

Mr. Ingram: I shall not withdraw because the right hon. Gentleman clearly did not hear what I said.

Mr. MacKay: I did.

Mr. Ingram: I do not doubt for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman may have spoken to some of the families that he listed. However, other families and other victims do not like the parading of such pain and grief. Hundreds, if not thousands, of people have been affected over the past 30 years and I caution the right hon. Gentleman on that basis.
As the Minister with responsibility for victims, I meet many of them. I visited the pathology lab only yesterday and spoke to senior pathologists about what they do on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland. We have had to put counselling support into the victims liaison unit to ensure that its staff—the people who assist me—can cope with much of the pain that they encounter. That is why I caution the right hon. Gentleman to remember that his words can have an adverse impact.
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) spoke sensitively about Mrs. Kearney and his tribute to her was genuine. She is a brave women, who is challenging the circumstances in which she finds herself. However, the right hon. Members for Bracknell and for Upper Bann and others have referred to the Chief Constable, who has given interviews and written articles in which he tries to take a rounded approach to the subject and his comments on it. The article of 15 January has already been quoted extensively and extremely selectively, but it will be worth while for me to follow suit and quote selectively the Chief Constable's summation. He says:
Despite all of these barriers to the ultimate elimination of violence however, there remains a solid basis for optimism and hope for the future.
That is not a defeated Chief Constable, but a man who has to assess all of the problems in his society and who, even knowing what he has to interpret, still looks hopefully toward a vision of a better future.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Minister give way on that point?

Mr. Ingram: No, I shall not.
Where division exists, it is on our response to the actions that have been described tonight and on how best to put an end to them. Clearly, there are groups and individuals at work in Northern Ireland who seek to bring an end to the whole peace process—indeed, there are some Members of Parliament who want the current


process to fail. The right hon. Member for Bracknell indicated that there are those within his own party who might adopt such an approach. Such people reflect the views of a small minority and the Government are determined to ensure that they do not succeed. They are minority voices who represent the past and offer no hope for the future.
The debate has dealt with two distinct ways forward for the current peace process—two separate strands of thinking. The first, set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, is to look at the process in the round. It is to look at the history of paramilitary assaults and the backcloth against which previous Governments acted as they sought to drive forward the process, as defined at the time. It is to look at the context within which such actions are being carried out and the motivation behind them. It is to put those actions in the framework of everything else that is happening to create the new building blocks for a new and better society in Northern Ireland.
There is no question that those actions pose a risk to obtaining that new future. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out what she has done to date to challenge directly those who have influence over those who carry out such acts. She has made clear her determination to base her actions on the very best of security advice as to whether or not the ceasefires are still intact. The Government and the Secretary of State have not been complacent or indifferent to the ever-changing political and security landscape we face in Northern Ireland—far from it. The judgment that has been made is that there is no guarantee that stopping the prisoner release programme will bring an end to paramilitary assaults.
It would be most unwise for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the Government to play brinkmanship with the Good Friday agreement. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik) made an excellent point in that respect. It is the Government's judgment that for us to indulge in such brinkmanship could place the whole Good Friday agreement in jeopardy. All our efforts to date have been aimed at honouring our commitments under the agreement and pressing others to honour their commitments. We shall not tire of repeating that the Good Friday agreement offers the best way forward for all sections of the community in Northern Ireland.
However, the Government have to weigh all their decisions carefully before acting. We cannot and should not indulge in short-term fixes, as has been demanded by the Opposition and others in today's debate. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said earlier today, previous Governments and Secretaries of State have continued a programme of prisoner releases against a backcloth more violent than the one that we face. In opposition, we judged that those Governments were right to do so, because the ultimate prize was so great, both then and now. In government, we are trying to keep on course a process that offers the best possibility of success.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Ingram: Let me develop my argument. I shall deal with the points raised by Opposition Members and then we shall see whether they want to argue them.
The other strand of thinking that has been advanced in the debate is that the Government should bring a halt to the early release programme. However, no arguments have been put forward as to why it is thought that to do so will result in a reduction of such actions, or bring about a better climate, with the prospect of more progress being made on the implementation of the Good Friday agreement. The right hon. Member for Bracknell said he would establish that point—that he would set out the basis for his arguments and prove the results—but he did not do so. He did not provide evidence for what the consequences would be, but simply gave an analysis of what he thought was desirable without justifying his conclusions.

Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Ingram: I shall give way in a moment.
Instead of the Government's strategy, which offers what we consider to be the best possibility of success, we are being urged to embark on a course of action that will almost certainly lead to failure. We know that the Opposition are genuinely committed to the Good Friday agreement, as are most, if not all, of the other parties represented in the House. However, the Opposition are advocating a punitive response, without supplying any evidence that it will produce the desired result. That response is at variance with, and contrary to, what the Conservative party did in government. The only conclusion that I can draw is that they are playing party politics with people's lives.

Mr. Moss: Will the Minister give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It is entirely up to the Minister whether or not he gives way, and persistence will not necessarily be successful unless the Minister is willing to give way.

Mr. Ingram: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Robathan: The Minister is scared stiff.

Mr. Ingram: That is a silly comment—it is not something that can ever be said of me.
I shall quote a small article that appeared in today's Belfast News Letter. It is headed, "Hague 'using terror victims'" and states:
The wife of a man maimed by loyalist paramilitaries last night accused Tory Party leader William Hague of using the issue of paramilitary attacks for political ends.
Linda Peden, whose husband Andrew lost both legs in a UVF 'punishment' shooting, was incensed that Mr. Hague had cited her husband's case in his call for the suspension of prisoner releases.
Before I used that article, I got my office to contact Mrs. Peden to ensure that the story was accurate and that she had no objection to my using her name in the debate. She said that she was happy for me to do so, so that her message was put across.

Mr. Moss: Like the Secretary of State during our previous debate on the subject, the Minister has repeated


the half-truth that was also peddled by the Prime Minister this afternoon. The release of prisoners under the previous Government is in no way the same as the current policy of the Labour Government. We simply amended the remission dates in line with those of the United Kingdom mainland. We did not include lifers, whereas the current Government have included all life prisoners, and all prisoners will ultimately be released.

Mr. Ingram: I shall place in the Library of the House some of the details of those who have been released so as to set out the long-term prisoners, some of whom were involved in planning terrorist acts, who were let out under the early release programme set in motion by the previous Government.

Mr. Moss: Not lifers.

Mr. Ingram: Defining the difference between lifers and long-term prisoners—do the Opposition want us to base our judgments on that, rather than on what those prisoners plotted to do or what they actually did? The Opposition have sunk very low and it is a matter of great regret that they have done so.
I can now provide the examples that I mentioned earlier. Two prisoners who were under sentences of 18 years for conspiracy to murder were released. One prisoner was released from a sentence of 17 years for conspiracy to cause explosions. One prisoner was released from a sentence of 14 years for possession of firearms and explosives and attempted murder. One of the prisoners released had been convicted of involvement in a ghastly sectarian murder—the murder of two Catholic girls in a mobile chip shop in Portadown. Those are just some examples of the people whom the previous Government released. We never criticised. We recognised the benefit of that process.
I do not have time to deal with the other points that have been raised or further to concede the Floor. I ask that the motion be defeated and that the amendment be carried.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 343.

Division No. 49]
[7 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Clappison, James


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony



Beggs, Roy
Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey


Bercow, John
Collins, Tim


Beresford, Sir Paul
Cormack, Sir Patrick


Blunt, Crispin
Cran, James


Boswell, Tim
Curry, Rt Hon David


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davies, Quentin (Grantham)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)


Brady, Graham
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Brazier, Julian
Duncan, Alan


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Duncan Smith, Iain


Browning, Mrs Angela
Evans, Nigel


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Faber, David


Burns, Simon
Fabricant, Michael


Butterfill, John
Fallon, Michael


Cash, William
Flight, Howard


Chope, Christopher
Forsythe, Clifford





Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Page, Richard


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Paice, James


Fox, Dr Liam
Paisley, Rev Ian


Fraser, Christopher
Paterson, Owen


Gale, Roger
Pickles, Eric


Garnier, Edward
Prior, David


Gibb, Nick
Randall, John


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Gray, James
Robathan, Andrew


Green, Damian
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Greenway, John
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Hague, Rt Hon William
Ross, William (E Lond'y)


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Hammond, Philip
Ruffley, David


Hawkins, Nick
St Aubyn, Nick


Hayes, John
Sayeed, Jonathan


Heald, Oliver
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Shepherd, Richard


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hunter, Andrew
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Soames, Nicholas


Jenkin, Bernard
Spicer, Sir Michael


Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Spring, Richard



Steen, Anthony


Key, Robert
Streeter, Gary


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Swayne, Desmond


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Syms, Robert


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Lansley, Andrew
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)



Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Leigh, Edward
Thompson, William


Letwin, Oliver
Tredinnick, David


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Trend, Michael


Lidington, David
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Tyrie, Andrew


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Viggers, Peter


Luff, Peter
Walter, Robert


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Wardle, Charles


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Waterson, Nigel


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Wells, Bowen


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Whittingdale, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Maginnis, Ken
Wilkinson, John


Malins, Humfrey
Willetts, David


Maples, John
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Mates, Michael
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Woodward, Shaun


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Yeo, Tim


May, Mrs Theresa
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Moss, Malcolm



Nicholls, Patrick
Tellers for the Ayes:


Norman, Archie
Mrs. Caroline Spelman and


Ottaway, Richard
Mr. Stephen Day.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Bermingham, Gerald


Ainger, Nick
Berry, Roger


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Best, Harold


Allan, Richard
Betts, Clive


Allen, Graham
Blackman, Liz


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Blair, Rt Hon Tony


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Blizzard, Bob


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Atherton, Ms Candy
Boateng, Paul


Austin, John
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Banks, Tony
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Barnes, Harry
Bradshaw, Ben


Barron, Kevin
Brake, Tom


Bayley, Hugh
Breed, Colin


Beard, Nigel
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Begg, Miss Anne
Burden, Richard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Burnett, John


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Burstow, Paul


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Byers, Rt Hon Stephen


Bennett, Andrew F
Cable, Dr Vincent






Caborn, Richard
George, Andrew (St Ives)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gibson, Dr Ian


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Godsiff, Roger


Canavan, Dennis
Goggins, Paul


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caplin, Ivor
Gorrie, Donald


Casale, Roger
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Chisholm, Malcolm
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Harris, Dr Evan


Clwyd, Ann
Harvey, Nick


Coaker, Vermon
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Coffey, Ms Ann
Healey, John


Cohen, Harry
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Coleman, Iain
Heppell, John


Colman, Tony
Hesford, Stephen


Connarty, Michael
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hill, Keith


Cooper, Yvette
Hinchliffe, David


Corbett, Robin
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbyn, Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cotter, Brian
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cummings, John
Howells, Dr Kim


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Dalyell, Tam
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Hurst, Alan


Darvill, Keith
Hutton, John


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Ingram, Adam


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dawson, Hilton



Dean, Mrs Janet
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Denham, John
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Drown, Ms Julia
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Edwards, Huw
Kemp, Fraser


Efford, Clive
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Ennis, Jeff
Khabra, Piara S


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
Kidney, David


Fearn, Ronnie
Kilfoyle, Peter


Field, Rt Hon Frank
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Kirkwood, Archy


Flint, Caroline
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Follett, Barbara
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Don (Bath)
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Gapes, Mike
Levitt, Tom





Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry (Worsley)
Quinn, Lawrie


Linton, Martin
Radice, Giles


Livingstone, Ken
Rammell, Bill


Livsey, Richard
Rapson, Syd


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Raynsford, Nick


Lock, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Love, Andrew
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


McAllion, John
Rendel, David


McAvoy, Thomas
Rooker, Jeff


McCabe, Steve
Rooney, Terry


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ruane, Chris


McDonnell, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McGrady, Eddie
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


McIsaac, Shona
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McKenna, Mrs Rosemary
Ryan, Ms Joan


Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert
Sanders, Adrian


McNulty, Tony
Sawford, Phil


MacShane, Denis
Sedgemore, Brain


Mactaggart, Fiona



McWalter,Tony
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


Mallaber, Judy
Singh, Marsha


Mallon, Seamus
Skinner, Dennis


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Maxton, John
Squire, Ms Rachel


Meale, Alan
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Merron, Gillian
Stevenson, George


Michael, Alun
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Milburn, Alan
Stott, Roger


Miller, Andrew
Stringer, Graham


Mitchell, Austin
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Moffatt, Laura
Stunell, Andrew


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Moore, Michael
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Moran, Ms Margaret



Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Morley, Elliot
Temple—Morris, Peter


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Mountford, Kali
Timms, Stephen


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Tipping, Paddy


Mullin, Chris
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Touhig, Don


Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Trickett, Jon


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dr George(NW Norfolk)


Oaten, Mark



O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Öpik, Lembit
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Tyler, Paul


Pearson, Ian
Ward, Ms Claire


Pendry, Tom
Wareing, Robert N


Perham, Ms Linda
Watts, David


Pickthall, Colin
Webb, Steve


Pike, Peter L
Welsh, Andrew


Plaskitt, James
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Pollard, Kerry
Wicks, Malcolm


Pond, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond
Willis, phil


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Winnick, David


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Wise, Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Wood, Mike


Purchase, Ken
Woolas, Phil






Worthington, Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)
Mr. David Jamieson and


Wyatt, Derek
Mr. Greg Pope.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House condemns absolutely the barbaric practice of paramilitary attacks in Northern Ireland, condemns the human and material cost of these assaults and the contempt they demonstrate for the rule of law; notes the commitment made by all parties who endorsed the Good Friday Agreement to "the protection and vindication of the human rights of all"; welcomes the Government's determination to fulfil its responsibilities under the Good Friday Agreement in this as in every other area; and calls on all people, parties and organisations to use all their influence to bring these attacks to an immediate stop, to help the police in any way they can, and to work to build on the Good Friday Agreement to create a society in Northern Ireland where such attacks are a thing of the past.

London Underground

[Relevant documents: The Seventh Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1997–98, on London Underground (HC 715-1) and the Government's Response thereto (CM 4093).]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on the London Underground. The Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Richard Ottaway: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's delay in the financial restructuring of London Underground; calls on it to put forward plans, as soon as possible, for the private finance and operation of the Underground; condemns its handling of the completion of the Jubilee Line; and abhors the abolition of financial support from 2000 with no alternative sources of funding in place.
There is widespread and growing concern that London Underground is failing—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not staying for the debate please conduct conversations outside the Chamber?

Mr. Ottaway: There is widespread and growing concern that London Underground is failing to provide the expected quality of service. Despite substantial investment in the core network in the 1980s and 1990s, delays and service interruptions are routinely reported on news bulletins. Complaints regularly feature in newspaper letter columns, and public displays of customer anger and frustration are becoming more frequent.
Under the headline, "The Tube service no one in power cares about", the columnist Simon Jenkins recently wrote in the Evening Standard that London has two tribes: those who travel on the tube and those who do not. He described the former as
a tribe of moles, bruised, pasty-faced and lost to the call of the clock.
He continued:
For millions of working Londoners, the Tube is their only experience of Third World squalor. They may not visit London's prisons, mental hospitals or sweat-shops. They may not frequent the ghettos of Hoxton or the tenements of Walworth. They live in tidy homes, work in neat offices and eat in clean restaurants. But they use the Tube. It is the nastiest thing they do.
Notwithstanding the writer's licence to produce a few artistic flourishes, there is a grain of serious truth in those remarks.

Mr. Mike Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that such an article could have been written at any time in the past 18 or 19 years under the Conservative Government?

Mr. Ottaway: Some would say that it could have been written at any time in the past 50 years, but it happens to have been written 18 months into this Government and it had not been written before.
In his statements on the underground last year, the Deputy Prime Minister ignored the level of investment of the past decade, which dwarfs anything that the


Government are spending today. Instead, he apportioned blame for the current state of affairs on the former Greater London council and the previous Government. It must be said that one can never invest enough in the underground, as the Minister of Transport is only too aware, but, whatever the merits or otherwise of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement and despite the lack of investment by Governments in the 1960s and 1970s, it is clear that this Government must now shoulder responsibility for the present situation and, in particular, for their failure to provide any hope of improvement in the foreseeable future.
The delay in any policy development is utterly regrettable. After 18 years of Labour preparing its policy in opposition and as we approached the last general election, the then shadow transport spokesman, the right hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), urged a future Labour Government to get moving straight away with a public-private partnership. Admittedly, that was the same speech in which he said that he would not privatise air traffic control, but he gave the impression that Labour was raring to go with its plans for London Underground.
During the Opposition day debate in June 1997—after the election—the Government moved an amendment applauding their
swift action on options for public-private partnership to improve the Underground".
The then Minister of Transport kept up a brisk pace, saying that he would not be paying his financial advisers much because,
we shall be using them for only a few months".—[Official Report, 25 June 1997; Vol. 296, c. 866-9.]
I am sure that he now regrets those words.
In January 1998 the tone changed. There was no talk of "swift action", just a great deal of self-congratulation; but our hopes were raised in March last year when the Deputy Prime Minister announced that he was going to make a statement on London Underground. What did he say after 10 months' of brainstorming on a new policy? Wait for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker—he said that he was going ahead with the public-private partnership for London Underground, and that is all he said. However, our worst fears were realised when he said that it would take him at least until the new Greater London authority was launched in May 2000 to put his plan in place. That is three years after the general election—but it did not stop there.
During the Second Reading of the Greater London Authority Bill, the Deputy Prime Minister caught us all on the hop—he said that he was not going to be rushed. Well, that is one pledge that he has kept. Supported by inspired leaks, he implied that it might be towards the latter part of 2000 before any public-private partnership was in place. Here we go—this is the brave new world for London Underground: not a single step taken by the private sector for three and a half years after Labour came to office, and when anything happens, it will be only a few engineers turning up in Ruislip or Cockfosters. By the next general election, there will be no tangible improvement to the underground.
It is also becoming increasingly apparent that there is a black hole in London Underground's finances. The Minister needs to tackle three fundamental issues. The

first is the financial situation in April 2000. The Government's comprehensive spending review makes it clear that all Government grant to London Underground ceases in April 2000. That is just 14 months away, and the House and London Underground are entitled to know what the Government's funding plans are from then on.
The second issue that the Minister has to tackle is the grave doubts about London Underground's ability to be self-financing. In its evidence to the Select Committee, London Underground said that it would need an operating surplus of at least £400 million a year to meet investment requirements and to stop the backlog in investment getting any larger. Based on a surplus last year of £265 million, it said that it believed it could get its surplus up to the required £400 million in three ways: a 13 per cent. volume increase in passengers, a 13 per cent. reduction in unit costs, and annual fare increases of 1 per cent. in real terms. It defies belief for the Government to argue that that is achievable.
A 13 per cent. volume increase in passengers means another 100 million passengers on the tube each year. At the same time, no extra capacity is planned. What does the Minister think the reaction to that would have been in Baker Street, Bond Street and Green Park stations, where last week, passengers were jammed into trains like sardines? At peak times, the tube is already full to capacity—the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) knows that because he was stuck in a tube at the time.
Does the Minister really think that a 13 per cent. reduction in unit costs is achievable, when the Government are having to bribe construction workers on the Jubilee line with bonuses just to do the job that they have been contracted to do? The one thing that we know the Government are capable of doing is putting up fares—they have just increased fares by twice the rate of inflation.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): Is the hon. Gentleman against bonuses in principle? If so, why, during the 18 years that the Tories were in government, did he never once complain when huge bonuses were paid in the City, especially in the privatised utilities? Why is it all right for the fat cats to get bonuses, but no one else?

Mr. Ottaway: If that is all that the right hon. Gentleman can come up with, this is going to be a pretty rum debate. The truth of the matter is that the electricians on the Jubilee line have a contract, but they have been holding the Minister to ransom and he has given in to their demands because they are the union paymasters.
As I was saying, the one thing that the Government have done is to put fares up. Indeed, they have just put them up by twice the level of inflation. It is interesting to compare that with the situation on the railways. On the underground, there are fare increases and break-even investment. On the privatised railways, there are fare cuts and a level of investment that the underground would die for.
The third problem that the Minister has to address is whether London Underground can become self-financing. It is its inability to be self-financing that is undermining the Minister's plans for the public-private partnership.

Mr. Geraint Davies: The previous Government cut investment in London Underground by


£378 million, whereas this Government have reinstated some £365 million. How does the hon. Gentleman square the financial circle without investment and without increasing fares? How would he do it, or is he financially illiterate?

Mr. Ottaway: Before the hon. Gentleman makes an intervention like that, he should take a closer look at the facts. In their last 10 years in office, the Conservative Government invested a total of £7 billion, or £700 million a year, in London Underground, compared with this Government's £500 million a year. Also, I suspect that the hon. Gentleman is looking at the figures in the spending review for 1998–99, which show that the total level of expenditure would be down to £250 million. That earlier investment was state investment; on top of that would have been the money from the privatisation that our party would have got on with by now, recycling funds and adding investment, thus taking it to levels that Labour could never have dreamed of.

Mr. Davies: rose—

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is coming back for more.

Mr. Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman have any idea what the projected investment would have been under privatisation, or was the project just pie in the sky and not thought out? What really happened was that the previous Government slashed expenditure in the run-up to the election. Also, there was no private finance initiative or any real partnership with the private sector under the previous Administration, only hot air.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman can be excused because he was not in the House in February 1997, but we made it absolutely clear in a statement on 25 February 1997 that investment would be in the region of three quarters of a billion pounds a year—again topping anything that Labour has tried to do. It is here in the record, in black and white, for everyone to see. Does the hon. Gentleman want to come back for another go?

Mr. Clive Efford: The hon. Gentleman says that privatisation would have improved the underground. Does he believe that his constituents get a good service from the railway network that his Government privatised at a bargain basement price?

Mr. Ottaway: I should have thought that, as an ex-London cabbie, the hon. Gentleman would know that the London underground does not go to Croydon. [Interruption.]

Mr. Efford: I was talking about privatisation of the rail network, as the hon. Gentleman well knows. His hon. Friends are shouting loudly because they do not want to hear the facts. If he can get them to be quiet, perhaps he could answer my question. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that his constituents get a decent service from the rail network that his Government privatised at a bargain basement price?

Mr. Ottaway: I can do no more than quote the Deputy Prime Minister, who said that he did not honestly think

that people really cared whether the railway was privately or publicly owned, and that they just wanted a good system.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Will my hon. Friend invite the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) and all the other Labour Members to Southend-on-Sea where the rail line used to be referred to as the misery line? As a regular traveller, I found that trains were constantly an hour late; the conditions were terrible, the trains were deplorable and there was no investment. Since the service was privatised, the service is vastly improved, and we are getting new rolling stock. If anyone doubts the improvements, let them come to Southend, where they will see that the line is much changed for the better since privatisation.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We seem to have been led into a siding. We should get back to the London underground.

Mr. Ottaway: I should hate to be diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) makes a powerful point, as always.
We welcome the Government's decision to involve the private sector in London Underground. There are many forms of private finance initiative. The Government's preferred option is to award long-term contracts for the maintenance of the infrastructure and to leave the operations in the public sector. We do not agree with that format, but we must live with it.
In his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister proudly said that his plans for the private sector were a £7 billion investment programme over the next 15 years. That sounds all very well until one starts to probe the statement. First, the proposed investment compares badly with the £7 billion invested by the previous Government in the 10 years from 1987 to 1997.
Secondly, the present level of investment is about £500 million a year. One does not have to be a genius to work out that, over 15 years, that would come to £7.5 billion, so there will be nothing new or significantly different from the level of cash that is already going into London Underground, except for one highly relevant factor.
Under the Deputy Prime Minister's plans, that money is not a Government grant; it is a private sector investment and the private sector will want it back. Out of London Underground's proceeds, we shall have to pay back the £7 billion, plus interest. A pay-back period of up to 30 years is planned, but that exacerbates the situation. In my judgment, it is virtually impossible to write a 30-year infrastructure contract in an era when technical changes move so rapidly.
Not surprisingly, many of the private companies involved are having serious doubts about the viability of the entire project. It came as no surprise that the much-respected Construction News stated:
Only half the firms bidding for the £11 billion revamp of London's Tube network believe the project will go ahead.
Fresh doubts over the future of the scheme have surfaced after London Underground's decision to ditch its original plan to have the deal signed by May 2000.


Contractors are concerned that the scheme in its present form fails to stack up financially.
The level of scepticism among firms is highlighted in a Construction News survey of the 20 bidders. One angry contracting boss said: 'It's a dog's breakfast.' Another frustrated bidder said: `It concerns me that there is actually any will for this to go ahead.'
Even London Underground's former director of civil engineering, David Hornby, admitted: 'The timetables were always very optimistic.'
Construction News quizzed senior sources with these firms and only 10 thought the project would definitely go ahead in its current form. None thought the original timetable was realistic. One said: 'They don't know what they want out of it apart from a lot of private cash without ceding any control. Nobody knows what the real risks are.'
That quotation goes to the root of the problem. The private sector is making it clear that it is not prepared to carry the unknown risk. If the Government want to keep control, they will have to underwrite the investment. The snag is that, such is the high-risk nature of the project, such a guarantee would inevitably go on to the public sector borrowing requirement. Having just got shot of the subsidy to London Underground, the Treasury is hardly likely to take that on.
The truth of the matter is that the Government's plans are in deep trouble. We have the severest doubts whether the public-private partnership will ever get off the ground. In our view, the concept as currently proposed is doomed, and the only loser will be London's public.
Equally serious is the issue of the transfer of London Underground to the Greater London Authority. Grant will stop next year; a partnership will be put in place in a couple of years; and the whole lot will be handed to the mayor, who will be told, "This is your problem now."
The present state of affairs is unacceptable. We all know that the Deputy Prime Minister is making a pig's ear of the policy, but it is adding insult to injury to expect Londoners to pick up the pieces.
A central feature of the mayoral election will be the candidates' proposals for sorting out London's transport problems. It is unacceptable that the mayoral candidates will have no idea of the nature of the contracts being negotiated. [Interruption.] Perhaps they may have a quiet word with the hon. Member for Brent, East. Perhaps such a facility will be made available to other candidates.
The Government should conclude their negotiations by this autumn, so that all is clear to the candidates involved, or the final negotiations should be concluded by the new mayor, and he should—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Or she."]—he or she should have the final say.
The new authority will have to pay back the private contractors their £7 billion, plus interest. To do that will require at least £750 million a year. London Underground can raise £300 million. The mayor will have to make up the difference. The only tool that the Government are giving him is road user charging.
Notwithstanding the fact that London is almost certainly the worst place in the whole of Great Britain to start the first road-pricing scheme, it is provisionally estimated that road pricing will bring in about

£300 million a year, with motorists passing 130 pricing points. That is a shortfall of £150 million for the mayor.
Already 83 per cent. of Londoners travel by public transport, and only 17 per cent. use the private motor car. Of those, many are obliged to do so because they work unsociable hours—for example, nurses, or mothers driving their children to school, or the disabled who rely on their own transport. Why on earth should those people be expected to pay for the Government's dog's breakfast of a public-private partnership?

Mr. Roger Casale: I have been following the hon. Gentleman's speech closely, looking for some sign that he wants the underground to be run in the public interest. Does he accept that public-private partnerships may be in the public interest, or is he still wedded to the discredited philosophy of his party in the 1980s that the public interest can be served only by full privatisation?

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman has missed the point. His own deputy leader said that it does not matter whether London Underground is in the public or the private sector. We believe that private sector involvement not only in the management of the infrastructure but in the operation is highly desirable.
Why should the vulnerable of London underwrite a package that the Transport Committee described as a "convoluted compromise"? If I were the first mayor of London, I would stand up for those people and reject any notion of the Government dumping the debt on Londoners. In our opinion, road pricing is not necessarily the best way of raising funds for the underground. Why should the mayor not have the discretion to borrow if he considers it appropriate? Why should he not have the power to raise funds by bond issues, as is the case in New York?
We urge the Government to break out of their anti-motorist mind set, particularly as there is no guarantee that the Treasury will not nab the funds from road pricing and put them in the Consolidated Fund. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the money would be ring-fenced for 10 years. That is not good enough. Any proceeds from road pricing must be spent on transport in perpetuity.
Furthermore, our faith in the Government's ability to make all their proposals work is shaken all the more when we learn that the operational control of the underground is to stay in the public sector. The people who bring us today's hopeless service are the very people who will be doing so tomorrow. They are the management on whom Londoners will be relying to clear the huge debt imposed on them. The Government have shown a complete lack of faith in the present management by bringing in Bechtel to finish the Jubilee line. In the Government's opinion, London Underground does not have the management skills to do the job. Leaving operations in the public sector is the worst of all worlds, and no doubt raises concerns among bidders.
If one really wants to see how the Government run the country, one has only to look at their management of the Jubilee line. In June 1997, the Minister for Transport in


London said that construction work was drawing to a close, engineering work was well under way and the line would be open by the end of September 1998. In February 1998, she said that it would open in spring 1999. At the end of June, she confirmed her thinking, saying that a thorough review of the programme has been undertaken and she planned to open the entire line in spring 1999. Then, disaster struck. The Government went away for their summer holidays. They took their eye off the ball and, by October, were saying that the line would not be open fully until late autumn 1999.

Ms Linda Perham: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, more than two years ago, when tunnelling problems increased costs from £1.9 billion to £2.6 billion, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) reduced the Government's contribution to £100 million and told London Transport to find the rest? What commitment to completing the Jubilee line on time did that show?

Mr. Ottaway: Why did the Minister say after the general election that she was confident that the line would open in 1998? She was perfectly happy with the contract and the finance that she was getting. The truth is that she has failed to deliver on her early pledge.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: In the light of the problems that—I think—both parties have had with the Jubilee line, does the Opposition spokesperson now deeply regret his Government's decision in 1982 to refuse to allow the then Labour Greater London council to build the line? It would now have been operating for eight or nine years. The short-termism and refusal to invest of Mrs. Thatcher' s Government have denied London that functioning line for the past decade.

Mr. Ottaway: If the hon. Gentleman were still running London's transport, we would still be waiting for the Jubilee line. So incompetent was his management of London's transport that, in 1984, we had to take it away from him.

Mr. Simon Hughes: As the hon. Member who represents areas in which the largest stretch of the Jubilee line extension runs, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, at this stage in the proceedings, it does nobody any good to undermine the almost certain prospect that the Jubilee line will be finished on time. Management, new management, the Government and London Regional Transport have put themselves out to ensure a line worthy of the next century. Talking it down, making it sound as if it will not succeed, when we want people to visit London and use London transport, is the absolute opposite of the approach that we should be taking to the Jubilee line extension.

Mr. Ottaway: The hon. Gentleman is being a little pious. Completion of the line is within the Government's gift to deliver. If he wants something done, and since he is part of a coalition with the Government, he should talk to them about it—unless his intervention was merely part of his leadership campaign.
There is every doubt that the line will not be operational by the end of this year. The millennium dome project was proudly conceived by the previous Conservative

Government, but is being messed up by this Government. In 11 months' time, the eyes of the globe will be on Greenwich as we enter the new millennium. We shall be the laughing stock of the world if the Jubilee line is not fully operational and the Minister for Transport in London is bussing people through the Blackwall tunnel as part of her contingency plan.
But then, this Government's management of the London underground is already the laughing stock of the nation. Gone is the previous Government's vision that brought us the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line extension, the Croydon tramlink, modernisation of the East London line and Thameslink 2000. In contrast, this Government have absolutely no plans whatever. London faces fare increases, more overcrowding and less reliability. The Government do not know where the money will come from, they expect Londoners to pick up the tab, and they are waiting for the mayor to solve their problems, as if he were some magician. The public will not buy it.

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
notes that the Government inherited a substantial investment backlog in London Underground and that this backlog arose from the previous Government's ideological antipathy to public expenditure and unwillingness to seek genuine and viable partnership between the public and private sectors; welcomes the Government's rejection of the Conservatives' policy of wholesale privatisation and applauds it for its thoroughgoing investigation of a public-private partnership as a means to secure necessary investment funds; notes that by providing additional funding of £365 million and that by bringing forward two Private Finance Initiative deals on ticketing and the power distribution system, the Government has already ensured that the Underground will benefit from around £1 billion of investment over the next two years; and is confident that the present Government's approach to London Underground will secure value for money for passengers and the taxpayer and give Londoners an underground system which meets their needs, is fast, reliable, comfortable and worthy of such a great capital city.
I approach the Dispatch Box with trepidation. This is the first occasion on which I have led for the Government as Minister of Transport. Over the weekend, I wondered who would be facing me, because, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) knows, there were constant rumours of changes to his transport team. The shadow Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), displayed his confidence in the transport team by suggesting that they should bring in a new recruit who has
great insight into the motoring industry. We would be interested in getting together"—
presumably in another bonding session. He was referring to none other than Mr. Vroom Vroom himself, Jeremy Clarkson, recently of television's "Top Gear".
Perhaps I put two and two together and made five when I saw that the Tories were thinking of recruiting Mr. Clarkson, because that attempted press-ganging of the reluctant Mr. Clarkson into the Tory team coincided remarkably with a story that the shadow Transport Secretary was about to be sacked. I noticed that that has changed. I hope that it was not only because Mr. Clarkson politely declined the offer extended to him, by saying:
The idea of working for the Conservative Party is ridiculous.


I have waited a long time to say that I entirely agree with every word of Mr. Jeremy Clarkson.
The first thing that strikes me about the Opposition motion is that it does not once mention the word "passenger". If the underground in London and the London transport system are not about passengers, then they are about nothing. That is the litmus test of the motion.
I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Croydon, South. I heard him speak about the vulnerable and the desperate need to protect those who are deprived and who do not have a car. At one stage, he mentioned the homeless. There are three statements that always stretch my incredulity. The first is, "Your cheque is in the post," the second is, "I will love you all the more for it in the morning," and the third is, "I am a Tory, and deeply concerned about the vulnerable and public transport."
It is noticeable that the Conservative party in opposition has sponsored three debates on the London underground. That stands in marked contrast to its reluctance to debate the London underground when it was in power. In the five years of the previous Parliament, the Conservative party, which is supposedly concerned about the London underground, could not find the time on one single occasion to debate the subject which they are now declaring to be so important. What wisdom the Tories have achieved in hindsight. What commitment they apparently have now that they have neither power nor responsibility. After listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Croydon, South, I must also say what self-righteousness they now have in their selective and collective amnesia.
The Government are picking up the pieces after 18 years in which the Conservative party, through its neglect and abandonment of any responsibility for it, allowed the London underground to decay and degenerate. Conservative Members have the gall to criticise a Government who have been in power for 20 months.

Mr. Oliver Heald: Thousands of people travel into London from Hertfordshire to work. They arrive at King's Cross and get on the Victoria line. Over the past two years, the underground trains have become more and more packed. The overcrowding is serious, so can the Minister point to a single measure that he has taken, or is going to take, that will ease overcrowding on the Victoria line for my constituents?

Dr. Reid: I will come to that issue later, but a Conservative Member saying, "Put us in charge, because we will make the underground just like Connex trains" will not bring people flocking to the banner of conservatism. Our knowledge that the essence of those problems springs directly from the almost criminal negligence of the previous Government does not in any way diminish our determination to face up to the challenges.
We do not underestimate the seriousness of the tasks that we face in respect of the London underground, and we know that, wherever the blame lies, Londoners are more interested in the problems being rectified than in the buck being passed. We will face up to those challenges,

not only because London is a major city, an influential city or a capital city, but because it is a great city. It is pre-eminent in terms of the extent of its boundaries, the size of its population, the wealth that it generates, its importance as a global financial centre and—perhaps above all—the burden of its history and the meaning of that in the history of this country.
London is the most populous city in the European Union, something that creates challenges for the transport system. It has 7 million residents in an area covering 1,578 sq km and it is a massive centre of finance, commerce and industry. London's gross domestic product stood at £93,450 million in 1996, and it has by far the highest GDP per head in the United Kingdom. It accounts for about a quarter of all businesses in the United Kingdom with a turnover of £5 million or more.
With all that, no one could fail to take London's transport system seriously, and such a great city deserves a great transport system. Transport in London represents the arteries of commercial and economic life, social activity and tourism. Although there has been continued growth in the use of the private car in Great Britain over the past 15 years, the number of car journeys in Greater London has fallen.
On an average week day, more than 1 million people come into central London during the morning peak, and more than 80 per cent. of them use public transport. Within London in 1997–98, passenger travel totalled nearly 4.4 billion passenger kilometres on the buses and 6.5 billion passenger kilometres on the underground. That is a massive amount, which is up 5 per cent. on the previous year. Passenger traffic on the docklands light railway has more than trebled since 1992–93.
Those figures alone show that the London public transport system is vital. Within that system, the underground is central.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not dissent from anything that the Minister has said so far. Does he accept that, if we are to achieve an underground and a public transport system in London for the next generation, it should be owned by the people who will use it? The logic of that position is that, although the Government are right to be working on getting the system ready, agreement on the system and decisions about financing it should be left to the new London authority. If that does not happen, whoever runs London will be able to say, "It's not our fault. The Government put us in this mess."

Dr. Reid: I agree with the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said, but the second part does not follow from his premise. I believe that Londoners, as well as the Government, want a publicly owned and publicly accountable system, operated in the public interest.
I also believe that we should keep all the operations of the London underground in the public sector—something that we fully intend to do—and make the system even more accountable by putting it under the control of the newly elected mayor of London, rather than take the avenue that the Conservatives propose: a rushed, wholesale privatisation where the underground is sold off at a knockdown price—that is what they did with Railtrack—irrespective of the consequences for either Londoners or the Exchequer.
The route that we are taking will reinforce the control and the effectiveness of the accountability system, which will result in a far better operation by London Underground in the long run.

Mr. Hughes: If I had to choose between the Minister's position and that of his Conservative opponents, I should certainly say that wholesale privatisation is not what Londoners want or what experience suggests is the right way forward.
Will the Minister reflect on the point that we are debating? If he and his colleagues do a deal that locks London Regional Transport and London Underground into a financial package, and that package is handed to the new London authority without it having the right to agree to it, alter it or take part in negotiations until their conclusion, the authority cannot be accountable. Its members will always be able to say, "This deal was done before we had control and therefore we are not to blame—nor are we are taking the blame—for anything that goes wrong."

Dr. Reid: First, waiting several more years before even making a start would let down the people of London. Secondly, we want to start at the earliest possible date, so changing the negotiating partner half way through would, in effect, put any deal off for years because no one would enter those negotiations.
We have said that we will undertake that there will be a publicly accountable, publicly owned operation on the underground, that we will enter into negotiations and that we will complete those negotiations. If a mayor is elected in the course of the negotiations, we will do everything in our power to bring him or her into the consultation process. In the world that we have inherited from the Conservatives, and following almost two decades of neglect, it would be grossly unfair on Londoners to wait any longer before working through and starting negotiations.
We will not proceed unless we can secure best value for Londoners and for people throughout the country. This is an immensely complex task. We could do what the Opposition have asked: set a final date and tell those with whom we are willing to go into partnership, "By the way, we have to finish by next May." I wish that I played poker with the hon. Member for Croydon, South; to declare one's hand at the beginning of negotiations is virtually to hand over control to the other person. That would not be in the interests of either the people of London or the people of this country.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I am most grateful to the Minister, who is extremely courteous in giving way.
The Minister travels hopefully towards the destination of a successful outcome to the tenders for the operation of the infrastructure, but there is a likelihood that he may not arrive at such a successful deal. Can he assure that House that, in that eventuality, he will not close his mind to outright privatisation, which happened with the express train link to Heathrow? That is an extremely good example to follow.

Dr. Reid: No. We have made it plain that we will retain the operations of London Underground in the public

sector. It will be publicly accountable to the new mayor of London and to the people of London. That is what Londoners want, and what they are proud of, and it is certainly what the Government want. The Opposition's constant allusions to the happy experience of the privatised railways will not draw people to their cause, whatever frustrations are caused by the present difficulties on the tube.
The hon. Gentleman would do better to admit that the privatised railway system has not been without its difficulties, particularly fragmentation. It is for precisely that reason that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and I have engaged with the privatised companies in an attempt to provide a networkwide and strategic dimension. Those are some of the benefits of a publicly controlled operation, and London Underground will remain in that state for as long as we are the Government.

Mr. Geraint Davies: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Dr. Reid: I must make some progress first.
Although hon. Members may be familiar with the underground system, I want to give them some idea of the sheer immensity of the project. Most of us think merely in terms of the central area, but the full network stretches far beyond that, serving commuters and communities from Amersham, 27 miles from central London, to Upminster, and from Morden to Epping, 18 miles from the centre. It is a massive complex: 243 miles of railway line, 106 miles of which is in tunnels. It serves 269 stations, the busiest of which—Oxford Circus—handles 90 million passengers a year. The underground has 12 lines, and last year its 4,000 carriages carried 832 million passengers. The commuters and communities served by that network need, indeed demand, an underground system that is modern, frequent and reliable.
I am sorry to say that, in facing the challenges, we start with a system that is not modern, frequent and reliable. That, unfortunately, is the inheritance passed to us by the previous Government. Spurred by their antipathy to public expenditure, their distaste for public ownership and their cavalier attitude to public transport—which they have exhibited this evening—the Tories ran the network into the ground. Owing to those years of chronic underfunding, the hard work of London Transport's staff is constantly undermined and passengers are persistently frustrated as worn-out, unreliable kit fails day after day, rush hour after rush hour.
The Conservatives' reaction was actually to cut the grand plan for London Transport. They made sharp cuts in funding, and, partly owing to the overspend on the Jubilee line extension—which, apparently, was not noticed by the hon. Member for Croydon, South in the four years before the general election, but now is—effectively cut London Underground's budget by nearly 50 per cent. There was a decade of Tory neglect.
The hon. Gentleman seems to think that Tory government started in 1987. Every reference that he made to investment related to that year. A decade of Tory neglect, however—from 1979 to 1989—could not be compensated for by a halting and inconsistent investment plan in the 1990s, which helped to create the mountain of difficulties that we must now overcome.
By their last year in government, the Tories had abandoned any hope, let alone intention, of investing in the network. They left us with an investment backlog of no less than £1,200 million. That was the legacy of those who have the gall tonight to criticise a 20-month-old Government.
I must tell Opposition Members that it is no surprise that the people of London, faced with such an abdication of responsibility, rightly told the Tories to go away, leaving them with only 11 MPs in the capital. I must also tell them that, if their current approach to London's transport problems continues, there will soon be as many Tory MPs in London as there are reasons for voting for them: none at all.
Unlike the previous Government, this Government have made a start—I claim no more than that—by tackling some of the problems. Lest anyone imagine that there is an ounce of complacency, let me say immediately that my colleagues in the Department and I realise that we have only begun to scale the foothills of the mountain of problems that we inherited from the previous Government. Indeed, in the short term, some of the remedies that we are applying—for instance, updating signals and escalators—may add another frustrating but necessary impediment to the smooth running of the system: necessary because the scale of the problem cannot be tackled without some disruption, and frustrating because the same problems were apparent during the 18 years in which the Tories were in power but did nothing about them.
I know that it is difficult to ask passengers to continue to be patient while stations and escalators are being refurbished and new trains are being brought into service. I recognise that that causes disruption and generates frustrations, especially when there are teething troubles, but at least the problems arising from progress and investment, in contrast to those arising from the neglect of the previous Government, hold out the prospect of a light at the end of the underground tunnel.
I do not hesitate to acknowledge, for instance, that the service on the Central and Northern lines is not up to the standard that passengers rightly expect. Passengers on the Central line are already travelling on new, larger and better trains, but the service is not yet as reliable as it should be. I accept that London Underground is working hard to resolve problems with a signalling technology that is causing some difficulties. It is new technology, which, when it is fully operational, will enhance train frequency and shorten journey times. The priority is to work towards achieving a reliable service.
That problem is typical of problems associated with new investment, rather than investment neglect. On the Northern line, existing rolling stock is being replaced by a fleet of 106 new trains. That brings its own problems: they are the first new trains on the line since 1972. All too often, old trains have broken down; if there are also teething troubles with new trains, that is no less frustrating for passengers because it is associated with renewal—but at least it heralds the prospect of an enhanced service once we come through the current period. Already, 20 new trains are in service. I have met the contractors to discuss a range of issues, and have raised that specific point with them. I know that they intend to introduce more new

trains as quickly as possible. Passengers should be able to enjoy a full service, run entirely with new trains, by autumn this year.
There is a difference between problems that will lead to service enhancements and the problems that resulted from the previous Government's neglect and abandonment of responsibility. The current position is a sign that the Government have made addressing London Underground's problems one of our highest priorities. We are tackling the problems head on. We have restructured and strengthened senior management. Last week, we were delighted to announce the appointment of a new chairman of the London Transport board. Sir Malcolm Bates, who has already worked with us on matters connected with the private finance initiative, will take the helm on 11 February. Derek Smith is due to take over as the new managing director of London Underground on 1 February. Both have proven track records, and I am confident that, with the right senior management team, London Transport will be able to meet the challenges that it faces.
We have secured new private investment in new ticketing technology and the power supply of the underground. In August last year, two private finance initiative deals, "power" and "prestige", were signed. They will bring real improvements for passengers. "Power" is worth more than £1 billion. Under that deal, the private-sector contractor will renew the underground's power distribution network, which will make the system more reliable and improve the underground's already impressive safety record. The "prestige" deal is a major ticketing project worth £1 billion, at the heart of which will be the introduction of smart-card ticketing for the first time on the underground and on London buses. Therefore, we have improved management and secured new deals with the private sector.
Above all, we are putting our money where our mouth is. We are providing London Transport with an extra £365 million over the next two years. That will mean that, including PFI, around £1 billion will be invested in the core network over the two years. That means that projects that include investment in track, escalators, embankments, signalling, rolling stock and stations throughout the network will benefit. Investment in projects such as the JLE and the Croydon tramlink will be in addition to that £1 billion. Our approach is in stark contrast with that of the previous Government, who cut planned expenditure to London Transport by some £380 million over the period that we are investing that £1 billion.
That extra funding is not all. It is only the tip of the iceberg in terms of necessary investment. Our proposals for a public-private partnership for the tube will bring a further £7,000 million over the next decade and a half. That partnership will provide the underground with the investment that it needs to meet our aim of a safe, reliable, affordable and modern network. It will mean what matters: faster journey times, increased train service levels as new signalling is introduced, and refurbished and modernised stations. All those have to be judged by the real litmus test: whether passengers perceive that there has been improvement.
I freely admit that, unlike the previous Administration, we did not want full-scale privatisation. Like passengers, staff and taxpayers, we wanted to keep the underground publicly owned and publicly accountable. However, we realised that both the public and private sectors had much


to offer. Our radical approach—a partnership between the two sectors—will secure the investment from the private sector that is necessary to meet our aim of a safe, reliable, affordable and modern network, but keep the underground under the control of the public sector.
Our partnership proposals mean that the infrastructure will transfer to the private sector on the equivalent of a 30-year mortgage, with the public sector taking over the assets again in an improved condition at the end of that period. I stress: the freehold of the network will remain in the public sector throughout the contract.
There has been some criticism by the Opposition over the fact that we are giving that £7 billion project detailed scrutiny. They apparently wish us to declare a deadline. Perhaps they would like us to post the deadline to all possible negotiating partners. If the hon. Member for Croydon, South were asked to form a firing squad, he would have people stand in a circle. I cannot think of anything that is more self-defeating than laying one's hand on the table at a negotiating session and saying to the opposite negotiator, "No matter how hard you bargain, no matter how much I dislike it, I have to tell you that, by next Friday, I will give in." That would unilaterally hand over London Underground infrastructure contracts at a massive loss to the public sector, in exactly the same fashion that the previous Government rushed to judgment on Railtrack, handing assets worth billions of pounds more than they got for them to the private sector. That may be an ideological ideal for the Conservative party. It does not make sense to the people of London or to the taxpayer.
I have made it clear that, in the private-public partnership, the value-for-money proposal will be the criterion against which all our proposals are tested. The Government will not implement a public-private partnership unless we are entirely satisfied that it will secure best value for the taxpayer.

Mr. Harry Cohen: My right hon. Friend is making an impressive speech, as he always does. May I take him back to the issue of current investment levels? I heard what he said about the £1 billion, but my concern is that Treasury has put a cap on the amount that it is prepared to put into the Jubilee line construction and that, as the costs soar above that, London Underground will have to find those additional costs from the amount for running the current network. Is there not a case for the Government to reconsider that point and to ensure that Jubilee line costs do not fall on existing passengers in the rest of the network?

Dr. Reid: The costs of the Jubilee line are kept under constant review by Ministers. They are published from time to time, normally quarterly. Our judgment has to be exercised over that matter and we will continue to scrutinise it, but I assure my hon. Friend that the allocation of funds to London Underground is not being affected detrimentally. We have given some £1 billion over the figure that would have been injected by the Conservative party. If I remember correctly as regards the Jubilee line, at least six delays were announced by the previous Government before we came to power. About £500 million was added to the Jubilee line, so none of us should underestimate the difficulties of a massive project such as that line.
I take only one aspect of it—Westminster station. That is the largest man-made hole in Europe. A third line is being driven between two existing lines on the banks of the Thames, and under and next to Big Ben and the House of Commons. The potential for disaster is obvious. Many people might think that the prospect of the House of Commons disappearing into the largest hole in Europe is not entirely a disaster for the nation, but, seriously, that shows some of the problems of the Jubilee line, with which I shall now deal—I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned it.
I will not belittle the problems that have faced the project and the challenges that remain. There have been delays. Most significantly, in late 1994 and early 1995, major tunnelling work in the project came to a halt for some months. Those related to safety fears over a similar tunnelling method at Heathrow. There was a significant delay. Most people would agree that halting the tunnelling work was the prudent and cautious thing to do because of the safety consideration, but it caused delays and higher costs. In March 1997, before the present Government came to power, London Transport announced that it was not able to meet the original planned opening date of March 1998.
That is the situation that we inherited, but the Government are determined that the new line will open in time for the millennium. In spring last year, we encouraged London Transport to review the project management's arrangements. Bechtel was appointed project manager to drive through the commissioning stage and to help to ensure that the extension was completed in time.
I assure Opposition Members and others that Ministers are sometimes in daily, and always in weekly, contact with London Underground and with Bechtel. My hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London and I both take a keen interest in the project, not just because it is a matter of transport for London and a state-of-the-art, modern and complex underground line of which we should all be proud, but because it is an element of national pride that, at the millennium, the millennium dome, the village and the project should be completed.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South and his friends should be careful on that one because I am sure that Londoners want the project to succeed. The Government want the project to succeed. The nation wants the Jubilee line to succeed. It appears that only one group of people wishes the Jubilee line to fail: Tory Members. As has been said, the Tories should be careful about undermining the efforts of the rest of us to have this modern, state-of-the-art and prestigious symbol of London finished this year. The Government are determined to do it. I hope that what is happening on the Conservative Benches is not becoming wish fulfilment as they run down and undermine the line and hope that it will fail.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: How can the hon. Gentleman possibly say that Conservative Members want the Jubilee line to fail when it was our Government who started the work and put the money there in the first place? Of course we want it to succeed.

Dr. Reid: I hope that the hon. Lady is the exception that proves the rule. I am sure that other hon. Members and those who read this debate in the morning or hear


it on the media will have cause to consider whether the Conservative party would glory in something that the rest of the country would regard as a disaster—the non-completion of the Jubilee line.
I would not want the House to underestimate the massive complexity of the task on the Jubilee line or what has been achieved so far. I shall tell the House what has been achieved.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Reid: In a moment.
On the Jubilee line, all the tunnelling is complete, all the track has been laid and all the trains have been delivered. The new stations are structurally complete and, as we speak, trains are being tested under signal control on the line between Stratford and north Greenwich. We are now into the crucial commissioning stage. As I have said, we do not underestimate the task, but we assert the simple fact that, when the Government inherited this project, it needed remedial action. The Government have provided that remedial action.
I have been honest with the House tonight—the Minister for Transport in London has been equally honest on previous occasions—in facing up to the formidable challenge of overcoming our inheritance from the previous Government. Sterling efforts are being made to give this great capital the underground system that it deserves. As a Scotsman, I am proud to be part of that effort because this is the capital city of the United Kingdom, not just of England.
The staff at London Transport are soldiering on. They are coping with the dilapidated infrastructure bequeathed to them. Despite that inheritance, during the last financial year, passenger journeys on London Underground reached record levels. Over 800 million passenger journeys were made last year and, this year, we expect to see a record 860 million journeys.
The Government want those journeys to be something to look forward to, not something to be dreaded. We want passengers to travel in comfort and to have a reliable service. As I have said, the Tory motion does not even mention the word "passenger". I believe that that says a great deal about their attitude to tonight's debate.
It is imperative that we modernise our essential tube system and I am glad to say that, by strengthening the management, bringing in new projects, new technology and new trains and putting in new resources, we have begun to make a successful start on tackling the underground's problems. However, I am the first to acknowledge that we have a long way to go. I hope that we will soon see our proposals for the public-private partnership implemented, but we would rather have them right than have them rushed. When we have them, we can make a real start on improving the infrastructure and, at long last, we will be able to give the citizens of our capital—our premier city—not only the capital investment but the premier performance on the underground that they surely deserve as we enter the new millennium.

Mr. Tom Brake: I have a sense of deja vu tonight as it is exactly a year since the last Tory Opposition day debate on the tube. This is another opportunity to remind Londoners that the Conservative party has primary responsibility for the chaos on the tube today. It was the Tories who organised a fire sale of the tube. They wanted a miserable £800 million for it at a time when it had £13 billion worth of assets. Of course, they hastily dropped that plan when it was leaked to the newspapers. It is the Tories who have left a backlog of repairs—the equivalent of £170 per Londoner.
That is not a partisan view; it is the view of the business community. London First said that
the last Government cut public funding for the existing system below the level needed even to sustain it in its present condition, in spite of the fact that they accepted that there was a £1.2 billion backlog.
The Confederation of British Industry said that
there has been a serious under-investment for a long time".
This is an opportunity to consider the Jubilee line extension project—it has been discussed at length. The Tories condemn the Government for their handling of the completion of the line, but what about their record? A number of hon. Members have referred to that record tonight. In October 1993, the original cost was expected to be £1.9 billion. That had increased to £2.76 billion by 1997. In other words, it was 45 per cent. over budget.
When the Tories claim that the Government's inaction jeopardises reliability on the underground, they are right. Their Government's inaction over nearly two decades has left the underground with record levels of breakdowns and under-investment.
Before Labour Members get too excited about what I have been saying, I must now say that, for the sake of Londoners, I wish that, since the election of the new Government, it had been "all change". I am afraid that under-investment in the tube has not changed. In fact, the Labour Government will have invested, on average, 11 per cent. less over the period 1997–2000—the latter being the last year for which figures are available—than the Tory Government spent on average after the 1992 general election.
I will give the Tories credit for the fact that, between 1992 and 1997, they spent more on investment on the underground than the present Labour Government will have spent. In case anyone wants to challenge them, I can tell the House that I obtained the figures today from London Transport's finance director. The figure is about £494 million for the Tory Government and £440 million for the Labour Government.
One thing has changed and that is the prevailing dogma. The Minister mentioned the Conservative ideological antipathy towards public services, but that has been replaced with Labour's obsession with public-private partnerships—the Government's alternative to wholesale privatisation. In July 1997, the Government commissioned a report into the future of the tube from Price Waterhouse. It looked at the various financing options for the tube and would, therefore, have looked at the public-private partnership. The findings of Price Waterhouse have not been made public, in spite of a


request from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Transport Sub-Committee in its seventh report on London Underground, which recommended that
the Report from PW, which evaluated the possible financing options for modernising the Underground and the advice submitted by London Transport, should be made public.
Why has that report not been made public? According to the Government's response to the Transport Sub-Committee's report it is because it is
not in the best interests of the taxpayers and passengers.
Is that really the case? Many would argue the exact opposite. It is in the taxpayers' interest that the information be made public immediately. Only then will we be able to judge whether the public-private partnership proposal is best value.
If the Minister answers just one of the points I have raised tonight, I should like him to say at what point the Government will accept that PPP is or is not best value. If the Minister accepts in a year or two that PPP is not best value, four or five years will have elapsed without any further progress on the tube. I hope that the Minister will respond to that point.
Many other people feel that the information should be in the public domain. For example, I suspect that Peter Ford, the old chairman of London Transport, would have liked it in the public domain. He told the Transport Sub-Committee that the Government's method of breaking the infrastructure into between one and three privately managed concessions would cost £1 billion to £3 billion more than retaining a single, publicly owned organisation.
That view is supported by House of Commons Library research, which estimates an extra capital cost of £70 million for every percentage point that the cost of private capital exceeds the cost of public capital. It is easy to arrive at Peter Ford's figure of £1 billion. If we assume that private money costs about 10 per cent. more than public capital—that is not an unreasonable figure; I have information from the National Audit Office on the extra costs of the Skye bridge project—we arrive at an extra cost of £700 million per year.
That figure is valid if all the money is borrowed up front and is spent on day one, but that will not happen—it is impossible to spend £7 billion on day one. If the £7 billion that the Government have referred to is for the duration of the contract, the additional cost of borrowing the money in the private sector will be about £1 billion, according to Library figures.
The Government's response to the Transport Sub-Committee report suggests that a substantial sum will be spent up front:
The design of the Public/Private Partnership will be aimed at ensuring that the private sector moves quickly"—
not over the duration of the contract, but quickly—
to eliminate the backlog and modernise the Underground's infrastructure".
It is fair to assume that a high proportion of that £7 billion will be spent in the early stages of the contract.
The Minister must tell us how much extra this will cost. Will it cost £1 billion extra over the duration of the contract, with the spending spread evenly, or will it be £700 million extra, with the £7 billion spent early in the contract? Where does the true figure lie? Londoners

would like to know, because that would help them to establish whether the public-private partnership proposal is best value.
The Government's blind faith in public-private partnership and their belief that it is a panacea that will fill all financial gaps is leading towards a financial solution that will cost the taxpayer and Londoners dear—if the PPP proceeds. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) has referred to the story, in Construction News, that half the contractors bidding for the PPP do not believe that it will proceed.
If that were not enough bad news, there are also problems with the Government's timing of the public-private partnership proposals. London's mayor and assembly will be elected in May 2000. They will have had no say over the London Underground contract, so they will be able to hide behind a "Not me, guv" attitude on tube cancellations, delays and overcrowding. The Minister is naive if he thinks that they will not respond like that. When overcrowding continues at current levels—no new lines are going to be built as a result of the PPP proposals—the mayor and assembly will deny all responsibility for the deal if their signatures are not at the bottom of the document.
The public-private partnership proposal is either an expensive or a very expensive means of financing improvements to the underground. It may never see the light of day and it will enable the mayor to pass the buck when things go wrong. The hon. Member for Croydon, South has already quoted from the Transport Sub-Committee's report, but it is worth reminding Labour Members that the Committee said of the PPP proposals:
Treasury rules have forced the adoption of this form of Public/Private Partnership, which is rather a convoluted compromise, when other financial solutions might have been more cost-effective.
In the meantime, the backlog of repairs grows.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I have one more point to add to my hon. Friend's case. If the new London authority inherits something that it has had no opportunity to influence, the problem will go deeper than the authority being able to wash its hands of the issue; the new authority will be undermined. If the people of London think that their authority cannot influence affairs and has no power over one of the most important public services in London, its credibility will be undermined from the start. That will not be good for the government of London on any issue.

Mr. Brake: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Unfortunately, the situation is even worse, because there are severe doubts about the extent to which the mayor and assembly will be able to influence rail commuter services in London.
In the meantime, the backlog of repairs will grow. The Minister has had the honesty to admit that things are getting worse before they get better. There has been a 20 per cent. increase in signal point failures and rolling stock failures in 1997–98. London Underground is on track for further increases in rolling stock failures this year.
How do we get out of the quagmire? We need to establish a public interest company or trust, with objectives set by the Greater London authority,


which would be outside the public sector borrowing requirement. The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to bonds. This is not an untested model. It is similar to arrangements that work acceptably in New York and San Francisco. The Liberal Democrats would will the means to provide the funds that are needed for the investment programme.
The Government are considering—and probably support—the measures that we propose, although the Conservatives do not. We advocate a levy on non-residential car parking spaces. A rough estimate suggests that £150 million a year could be raised from that. We support road congestion charges, provided that a viable public transport alternative is put in place. The London congestion charging research programme suggested in 1995 than between £95 million and £795 million could be raised through road congestion charges. We have also talked about a small increase in business rates for London's largest businesses, which could raise £150 million per annum.
In return, Londoners would get a transport system that was reliable, safe and affordable. They would get cleaner air, fewer cars on the road and a reduction in pollution-related illnesses such as asthma. The Tory Opposition have no solution other than privatisation. The Liberal Democrats—and Londoners—will not back that. Nor will we support the Government's proposals. I do not believe that the Government can demonstrate, as they suggest in the amendment, that their proposals will deliver best value.
The Liberal Democrat proposal—a public interest company backed by ear-marked revenues—would take the tube into the 21st century and, with the Liberal Democrats, Londoners are guaranteed a smooth and safe ride, in comfort and at an affordable cost.

Mr. Ken Livingstone: It is absolutely monstrous to be lectured by the Conservative party about neglect of the tube. Let us look at the figures that I jotted down while we were being lectured. Back in 1991, after the Conservative Government had been running London Transport since 1984, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission condemned them in a report that said that there was a backlog of maintenance and repair on the tube that would require an investment of £700 million to £750 million a year for 10 years to be cleared.
Initially, under the embarrassment of that report, the Conservative Government came up with £632 million for 1992–93, but, by the time that we got to the last full year of Conservative rule, the figure had been halved, with an investment of only £371 million to clear the backlog. There was additional funding for the Jubilee line, but that was not part or parcel of the MMC report.
It was absolutely monstrous of the Conservatives then to complain when one of the first acts of the Deputy Prime Minister was to put in another £365 million to revive the programme. I welcome that investment, just as I welcome his replacement of Mr. Ford, who had an agenda that was not in the interests of Londoners.
Having said that, I am not yet convinced of the Government's case on the funding arrangements, for all the reasons that we have heard.

Mr. Jenkin: I once went to the Library to try to find out what the capital investment in the London underground was under the Greater London council when the hon. Gentleman was its leader. The Library told me that the GLC accounts were so opaque that it was impossible to tell.

Mr. Livingstone: The accounts were subject to the approval of the district auditor and we never had any complaints about them.
One of the first acts of the Conservative Government when they came to power in 1979 was to pass legislation removing from local authorities any power to determine their own capital programmes. In the early days of Mrs. Thatcher's Administration, we lost the power to buy a bus or a train or to build a council house without the prior approval of the Department of the Environment.
Every year, under both Labour and Conservative leaderships, GLC leaders and their transport chairs had to trek across to beg the Department of the Environment to allow us to invest more in the tube, and every year we were sent away without our requirements being met. Investment in London Transport was determined by the Conservative Government in every year from 1980. They effectively had control of the capital investment programme for the best part of two decades, and they can blame no one but themselves for the chaos that they have left us to sort out.
I have been deeply impressed over the years by the Chancellor's commitment to prudence and to getting value for money. It seems to me that the entire public-private partnership will hinge on a simple bottom-line calculation of what is the cheapest way for Londoners to pay for the modernisation of their tube system.
If the public-private partnership comes up trumps and turns out to be cheaper than the other options that we have heard about from the Liberal Democrats, that would be fine, but it is likely—although I have to confess that this is a wicked calculation by the trade union concerned, the RMT—that the rate of return that the private sector will require for such investment may be between 20 and 25 per cent. Who in his right mind would take out a 30-year mortgage on a house at a rate of interest of 20 to 25 per cent? It is an absolute nightmare.
I strongly suspect that we will have to take a difficult decision at the end of this great exercise and consider how much cheaper it would be if we were allowed to have a bond issue to fund the investment. That works perfectly well in New York. In a sense, the Government have moved a good step in that direction. My dear and right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), before his demise, made the breathtaking, bold and radical left-wing gesture of allowing the Post Office finally to slough off the shackles of the Treasury and start raising funds in the market for a programme of expansion.
If we can do that for the Post Office, why not for London transport? One could even consider a tax increase, although I know that that is horrendously off message. I find remarkable acceptance among major City institutions for an increase in their business rate or a new


tax on business in London, provided that it was ring-fenced for the modernisation of the tube. That is a sea change in the attitude of City institutions to taxation. I strongly suspect that, if Londoners were told honestly that an additional sum would be put on the council tax so that the domestic sector could make a contribution—although one that, perhaps, would not match that of the private sector—the money could be raised through taxation.
It would be jarring for Londoners to be told by a Government so dominated by people from other regions of the country what they should and should not be doing with their own money, when there is a willingness among Londoners to pay for the investment. There are many problems to solve before the Government will be able to persuade Londoners. The opinion polls show that Londoners overwhelmingly reject the public-private partnership, and remain committed to the tube remaining completely and utterly within the public sector.

Mr. Brake: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a report in The Guardian on the public-private partnership in relation to National Air Traffic Services, in which the Civil Aviation Authority expressed concern about the safety implications of the public-private partnership? Does he agree that the Government should reconsider their position on the matter?

Mr. Livingstone: The evidence from the RMT on the old British Rail service—which suggested that probably illegal immigrants from Croatia who did not speak English were responsible for looking after safety equipment on the railways, and were unable to read the instructions on safety equipment—was very worrying. Directly employed people, accountable to the public sector, are much safer than fly-by-night operators, who are often picking people off the corner at busy London junctions and driving them to do cash-in-hand work in vital areas of public safety.
There is one danger that the Government may not have fully anticipated. As the programme has slipped back, we have got to the point where no final decision will be made before the mayor and the assembly are elected. I am a responsible person and, if selected, I shall run on the Labour party policy—heaven forfend that I should do anything else. However, suppose a candidate turned the election into a referendum on the issue of the public-private partnership and called on Londoners to reject it at the ballot box?
What could the Government do if a mayoral candidate were elected on a specific, primary commitment—above everything else in the election—to oppose the introduction of public-private partnership and to put forward other options, such as the bond issue or taxation? Would the Labour Government reject the clearly expressed will of Londoners at the ballot box? I hope that, in the Minister's reply tonight, we will be given some idea about that. As the operation has slipped back, it has offered Londoners the option at the ballot box of expressing an opinion on the issue. The Government need to work out what they will do in those circumstances beforehand, rather than in a panic afterwards.

Mrs. Laing: Following the hon. Gentleman's heartfelt remarks about what he would do for London transport, he received no support from his hon. Friends around him.

It is only fair that I and my hon. Friends should give him a little support. We may not agree with what he wishes to do financially or politically, but we wish him luck in terms of being allowed the freedom of speech that everyone should be allowed in this country to put his views to Londoners.

Mr. Livingstone: I am deeply moved by that intervention. I would have liked to hear a bit more like that when the Conservatives were abolishing the GLC. There was no great desire on the part of the Tory party in 1983 that I should continue to be able to put my interesting views before the British people.
We may yet find that it is Londoners who determine what happens with the issue. I suspect that is why many of the companies involved in negotiations are expressing some doubt and uncertainty. The Labour party needs to work out in advance that if we cannot convince the public, we do not have the right to impose on them something that they specifically reject at the ballot box.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I wish that the Minister of Transport was still here so that I could wish him well him on his appointment. He may have felt that the Ministry of Defence was an obstacle course, but it was as nothing compared with the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. At this early stage of his career as a Transport Minister, his sense of humour seems not to have forsaken him, and his allegory of a circular firing squad will have caught the imagination of hon. Members.
What caught my imagination, however, was the fact that he, a Scottish Member of Parliament, delivered a committed speech about London Underground. I wonder whether, before very long, when the Scottish Parliament is up and running and able to increase the income tax by 3p in the pound, the voters of London may not feel, with good reason, that the subsidy for Scotland disbursed at present from London and elsewhere south of the border should cease in favour of better investment in public transport and other public services of great importance to Londoners.
At the general election, two issues predominated—health and public transport. Labour spokesmen told us that things could only get better for both, but for my constituents things have only got worse. I shall not stray out of order by talking about the woeful situation facing Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals, two centres of excellence. However, my constituency has no fewer than eight underground stations: Northwood and Northwood Hills on the Metropolitan line; Ruislip, Ruislip Manor and Eastcote on the Metropolitan and Piccadilly lines; and West Ruislip, Ruislip Gardens and South Ruislip on the Central line.
If there is any problem with London Underground, as there so frequently is—particularly when there is what is euphemistically described as industrial action—my constituents face a real problem in getting to work. I imagine that more than half of them travel to work on the underground. The railways offer no effective alternative. There are only two railway stations to the south of my constituency, at South Ruislip and West Ruislip. Just outside the north of my constituency, at Moor Park, the Chiltern line trains no longer stop. If there is a dispute, or other problems, real difficulties arise.
The roads are already hideously congested. One would have imagined that the Government—so committed in their election rhetoric to improving public transport—would have adopted the intelligent approach of improving public transport to encourage people to use it before they clobbered the motorist. In fact, the motorist has been hit by increases in fuel duty well above inflation. If, as Labour plans, the Greater London authority is able to impose charges on motorists going into London, or to impose levies on employers who provide parking spaces, the motorist will be subject to a double whammy.
None of that will clobber those who stay in bed and do not go to work. It will penalise those who make the effort to get to work, or who, as employers, provide opportunities for others to work. This is quite the wrong approach. The Government ought to have improved public transport first to encourage people to use it. They would have had an incentive to do so. Instead, year after year, London Underground fare increases are well above inflation. This year, 4.5 per cent. is the average increase, which is almost double the present rate of inflation.
Many right hon. and hon. Members may have a view of my constituency that derives from "Tropic of Ruislip", by Leslie Thomas, or from the late poet laureate, Sir John Betjeman's vision of "Metroland". It is, perhaps, a vision of genteel tea taken in china cups behind lace curtains and of long, lazy summer evenings playing tennis. The reality is very different. My constituents have a real struggle, financially because the cost of housing in outer London is so high, but above all to get into work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) graphically described the mole-like existence of the London commuter on the underground. Quite honestly, moles have a happier life than many commuters today. At least moles are not jostled and shoved and I think that they have a modicum of certainty about their existence. There is virtually none on London Underground. If the service runs on schedule and there is not some hideous glitch, the commuter regards himself as exceptionally fortunate. This is the exception rather than the rule.
My long-suffering constituents—commuters who are so typical of the many hard-working Londoners—are looking to the Government to find out whether their election rhetoric will bring them a better deal. First, they ask whether the system will be properly financed. There was a debate across the Dispatch Boxes between my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman took 39 minutes to put his case, which was a bit much in every sense, and the Government amendment ran to 15 lines on the Order Paper.
I thought that the party below the Gangway—the party from south London, which does not have much connection with the tube or anything else—might at least have some academic insight on this subject. However, having listened to the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), we were not much the wiser about the benefits that Liberal policy would bring.
The electors ought to know that, if the tender for the infrastructure of London Underground is not a success, the Government have some alternative in mind. There is no mention of that in their public expenditure provisions.
The Government are against privatisation, so I asked the Minister whether their ideological commitment would be forgotten in the interests of providing funding by that means. I cited the example of the Heathrow link to Paddington. The Minister set his face against it. Our constituents and Londoners can only deduce that the issue will be a hot potato that will land in the lap of the mayor and the Greater London authority. How will it cope? It will have no mechanism to do so other than the imposition of road traffic charges and parking levies for workplaces.
The Government may think that the newly elected authority will take all the blame and face all the odium, but they should remember that they failed to face up to the funding realities, so they will have to carry the political can.

Mr. Brake: On funding realities, does the hon. Gentleman recall that the Conservatives were expecting to get £800 million for a privatised tube system? What would he expect the previous or present Government to achieve with that sum?

Mr. Wilkinson: Sadly, we never had the chance to float London Underground and find out what the market price would be. Londoners are looking not only for enhanced investment, but for the enhanced service that the privatised companies would have supplied. That was another aspect of our policy.
The system must be financed properly and be affordable to users. Although the mayor and the authority should not meddle politically with the management of London Underground, we hope that the body that the mayor will appoint to deal with transport for London will encourage London Transport to be more imaginative in its fares structure. I would not wish London Transport to return to the "fares fair" policy which was instituted by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone). Although it was well intentioned, it was a financial disaster. Nevertheless, there should be some encouragement for the hard-working Londoner who gets up early and is prepared to go to work before 8 am. Before the rush hour there should be an exceptional discount on fares—an early-bird system. I hope that the mayor will encourage London Underground to introduce just such a scheme.

Mr. Livingstone: In describing the Greater London council's fares policy as disastrous, the hon. Gentleman overlooked one simple fact. Although we cut the fares by roughly 30 per cent., so many more people used the system that we collected 10 per cent. more revenue in fares in real terms, enabling us to cut the rate after just 18 months of the operation of the policy. In my view that it was pretty successful.

Mr. Wilkinson: The difficulty is that the system is already bursting at the seams and there is no spare capacity to cope with the increased throughput which the hon. Gentleman suggests would ensue. That is why I propose a policy directed at the off-peak time before the rush hour with the introduction of early-bird fares.
The Government led Londoners and others to believe that there would be an increase in the network with new lines and the expansion of the system. All those ideas seem to have ground to a complete halt. Perhaps the Government feel too battered and bruised by the Jubilee line experience, so I shall cite three other examples.
First, if the Government have decided that crossrail is dead and that there is no possibility of a high speed east-west link in London, they should say so. It is a matter for the Government to decide. They cannot just pass the buck to the mayor and his authority as the crossrail link would extend far beyond the boundaries of Greater London. The decision to keep the route sacrosanct from development is causing blight, so an early decision is necessary.
My second example is the Croxley link, which would be a modest improvement of potentially immense benefit to my constituents and others in north-west London. It would link the Metropolitan line from Croxley tube station, through Watford high street to Watford Junction railway station. It would represent a modest increase in the system as the track already exists and simply needs to be opened up. I hope that the money will be forthcoming. That is why I pressed the Government to stop the subventions to Scotland when the Scottish Parliament is established in Edinburgh and inject some money here, where it is needed. The Croxley link is just one such example of need. The third example is the Chelsea-Hackney line, which has been anticipated—indeed, eagerly awaited—for some time, but of which there is no sign.
Although the debate is thinly attended and although the Liberals decry it as an annual event and therefore somewhat boring, it is of intense interest to Londoners. They expect the interim period to be used well by Her Majesty's Government and they are not prepared to wait until late summer 2000, when the mayor and his authority enter office: instead, they expect hard decisions to be taken now. They expect the tendering process for the infrastructure to be accelerated and, if it is not to be successfully concluded, they expect the injection of private capital for privatisation.

Mr. John Cryer: I represent a constituency containing thousands of people who, like me, travel in and out of London by tube every day. We have all seen the system gradually deteriorate: I remember one occasion when I had to walk from Ladbroke Grove to Euston because a single cable had failed in one part of the system, resulting in the whole system being out of action. That was a direct result of something that the Tories prefer to forget—the running down of investment in the system during the years when they were in office.
The speech made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) was a vacuous whine, which served no useful or constructive purpose either in the debate or generally. We know what the Tories' view of the tube is: their solution is privatisation. Privatisation has only ever served one purpose, which is to put taxpayers' and workers' money into the pockets of wealthy shareholders. That is how it has always worked and how it would always work if the Tories were back in government. They have proved that on various occasions, the most glaring example being the privatisation of the railways, not to mention the coal industry privatisation and every other privatisation that they undertook.
I must admit that I have my doubts about the public-private partnership planned by the Labour Government. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) pointed out, in its submission to

the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, the Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers union estimated that, from a 15-year contract and a £7 billion investment, a private contractor would look for a return of between 20 and 25 per cent., or about £1.5 billion. Those figures appear to have been accepted by the Committee.

Mr. Brake: For information, the return required on the Skye bridge was 18.4 per cent.

Mr. Cryer: London Underground could borrow money far more cheaply on the market through a bond issue and I can see no reason why it cannot do so, other than the fact that it might affect the public sector borrowing requirement, which might be a factor. However, the company could successfully borrow the money through an issue of debt on the bond market, which would produce a great influx of capital without the need to resort to hiring private contractors, who would demand a return of about £1.5 billion, which would effectively come out of taxpayers' pockets. What would happen if things went slightly wrong and the contracts overran or targets were not met? I should be interested to know what targets would be set and to what incentives and penalties the private contractors or contractor would be subject when the agreements had been finalised.
There is also the question of employees of London Underground and how they would be affected by the new contracts. New employees taken on by the underground after the PPP comes into effect will not be part of the pension scheme. They might join the pension schemes of some of the big contractors, but it is possible that they will end up working for subcontractors or even sub-subcontractors.
RMT representatives told me only a couple of days ago that some of union members who are former British Rail employees are now working for their sixth employer since 1995. When employees are passed on in that way, it is highly likely that they will end up working for some cowboy who will certainly not run a pension scheme and whose terms and conditions will be rock bottom because he undercut all the other cowboys to get the contract with the original contractor. The RMT also made the point that London Underground management has refused to negotiate on whether there will be compulsory redundancies or on terms and conditions.
The bottom line is that we can raise the investment without resorting to a PPP or any kind of privatisation. We can do it by borrowing on the bond market through an issue of debt. We can do it by increasing taxation. There are many options, but the important thing is that I know from my long experience of travelling through London and from the experiences of my constituents, of many people whom I know and of people in the unions that, if the Government are successful in sorting out transport in London, especially the tube, they will be praised to the rafters. The true path to a better transport system is to be found in the public sector through public investment.

Mr. Peter Brooke: The hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) will recall that I was present when he made


his maiden speech. I am delighted to follow him on this occasion and I congratulate him on the questioning nature of his speech.
When the Minister spoke in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway), he said that this was the third debate that the official Opposition had asked for on this subject. When the Deputy Prime Minister made his statement on the London underground, I asked whether, given the complexities that we were being asked to absorb in the brief space of a statement, it would be possible shortly after to have a debate in Government time. I say willingly that the Deputy Prime Minister was not unsympathetic to that idea, although he produced the disclaimer that the matter was not wholly in his hands. It is the official Opposition who have called this third debate and I am delighted that they have done so.
Politicians are divided into healers and warriors. I do not think that even my worst enemy would put me in a category other than the healers. In our first debate on the London underground, to an extent that even my Front-Bench colleagues probably thought was eccentric and idiosyncratic, I offered London Labour Members an olive branch of common cause. It was on that occasion flatly rejected in speeches of assault on the previous Government's record. The same blame for their record has been evinced tonight. I misquote deliberately, in order to avoid personalising the issue, "Methinks they do protest too much."
Both the Government amendment, the length of which was worthy of the length of the tube network without the benefit of a Frank Pick map, and the aggressiveness of the response from Opposition Members, were coloured occasionally by recall of that vignette of a Latin American delegate at the United Nations, in the margin of whose speech were marked the words "Weak point—shout." Certainly between them they revealed a Government on the defensive, by which I was not surprised.
That said, I salute and give credit to the Minister for one statement in the early part of his speech. He said that Londoners were interested in seeing the problems of London underground faced up to. He had a good crack about there being no references to passengers in the five-line motion tabled by the official Opposition. However, the one reference to passengers in the Government's 15-line amendment did not exactly overdo passenger concern. The Minister discreetly omitted from his speech any reference to the criticisms by the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee of what the Government were about.
As a Londoner, I agree that the Underground has been under siege under Governments of both colours and Greater London councils of both colours. My recollection of the relief of Lucknow is that the first sign of it was a skirl of bagpipes to the tune of "The Campbells are Coming." Londoners might be forgiven if on this occasion they thought that not all the Campbells would necessarily be welcome or of help if media presentation took precedence over solid improvement.
In such presentation as we received today, no reference was made to the Chelsea-Hackney line, phase 2 of the

channel tunnel rail link or advanced construction of the new Thameslink station at St. Pancras, let alone crossrail. That silence is not what Londoners expected of new Labour, and on Thameslink 2000 that silence is steadily lengthening.
What do third parties—I refer to those in London, not to those in the House—think of the position? The London chamber of commerce and industry said that the Government have a "can't do mentality". That is very new Labour. It says that 70 per cent. of businesses would oppose road user charges and workplace parking levies if revenues were not fully invested in improving public transport.
London First, to which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred, had a powerful influence on the previous election result in London through its canvassing on the London underground during the campaign, so it is no particular friend of the official Opposition. It has identified 20 transport actions that need to be taken before the setting up of the Greater London authority and 10 new powers that must be given to the authority. When the Minister for Transport in London winds up the debate, it will be interesting to hear how many of those proposals the Government are prepared to accept.
London First also reported that 51 per cent. of respondents in its business survey said that the underground was the most important transport issue for the Greater London authority, against 38 per cent. who said that road congestion was most important.
What about the Government's response, as demonstrated this evening? The reference to the £1.2 billion deficit on infrastructure, which I acknowledge—the figure is agreed throughout the Chamber—gave no credit to the fact that it is much less than half the deficit that the previous Government inherited from the Greater London council. The Minister of Transport claims that the Government have made a start, but he should also acknowledge the progress made by the previous Government, which has been recognised in my constructive conversations with London Transport management.
I am delighted to see the Minister return to the Chamber. I apologise for having referred to him in his absence. He did not refer to the fact that London underground fares are heading in the opposite direction to privatised rail fares. He made no reference to the article by Simon Jenkins, which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) quoted, or the astronomical charges that the Treasury is thought to be insisting that bidders should pay for access to the network. We were not told how far the absence of a survey for the infrastructure of the underground may be adding to the risks with which bidders are having to cope. The Opposition and those bidders have no idea what uncompetitive work practices the RMT may insist on.
Campbells may be coming—I treat the Minister with good will—but the terrain over which they are advancing remains unpromising. Londoners using the system need, above all, long-term stable policies. It is the task of the official Opposition to continue to man the ramparts of Lucknow. If that means a fourth debate, a fifth debate and a sixth debate, so be it. We shall know that relief is on the way when at last we have a debate in Government time.

Mr. Clive Efford: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred in his opening remarks to the fact that the word "passengers" does not appear in the Conservative motion. He should know that the previous Government gave up using the term "passengers" because it gave the travelling public the impression that they intended to take them somewhere.
As somebody who worked in London's transport system for nearly 12 years, I witnessed the ravages inflicted on that transport by the previous Government. In an attempt to be brief and allow other hon. Members to speak, I shall not respond to the remarks of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) or cite the catalogue of errors and attacks on public transport made by the previous Government.
I represent a constituency in south-east London and I know that public transport has to be treated as a public service that will always require funding from public money. Leaving it to the ravages of the private sector does not allow it to meet the various needs of the community. Many public transport services are essential but not profitable. Public subsidy will always be required, so public accountability will be necessary.
We have to start to plan, and to make the word "integrated" mean something if we are to tackle the economic environmental problems in London. We have to integrate trains, buses, the tube and the road network. I welcome the measure in the Greater London Authority Bill to combine responsibility for roads and other modes of transport because, for far too long, that lack of integration has been an obstacle to an effective plan for London's overall transport system.
London's traffic is likely to increase by 2 to 11 per cent. by 2000, by 8 to 21 per cent. by 2011, and by 22 to 59 per cent. by 2031. That points to serious problems for the economy and for people's health in London. We need to start addressing those problems, and we need to start now. With all due respect to the Liberal Democrats, we cannot wait to plan until the GLA is in place.

Mr. Brake: rose—

Mr. Efford: There is very little time left, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak. The hon. Gentleman has had plenty to say this evening.
Network SouthEast, which serves my constituency, is already running at capacity. There is very little scope for increasing that capacity at peak times, although investment in longer carriages and platforms may result in some improvement. Five of the operating companies are operating in excess of capacity—they carry many persons in excess of capacity every day—and, as I said, south-east London has no tube network.
Investment in London Underground, via the Jubilee line and other schemes, is planned to increase capacity outside of peak times by 25 per cent. by 2002 or 2003, but it is going to take a great deal longer to increase capacity at peak times. There is the potential for a further 20 per cent. increase, according to London Underground's own figures.
The bus is not seen as a suitable alternative by people travelling to London from my constituency or, for that

matter, by those travelling through my constituency. People use their cars out of choice. A recent survey in the Evening Standard demonstrated that even a cut in the cost of travelling by public transport would not result in people choosing to give up their cars, so we have to make public transport extremely attractive.
Derek Turner, the Traffic Director for London, was quoted last week in the Evening Standard as saying that we have to take a carrot and stick approach. I very much agree with that. Bus lanes will take out sections of the road but will then offer an opportunity for people to travel more quickly by bus. He regards the bus as being the only solution to the problem of excess demand for transport over the next five years. That is not true in all cases, but in south-east London, where there is no underground network, we certainly need to find other ways to expand our links to the underground.
We have the prospect of road pricing in London, which will fund investment in public transport networks. If people in south-east London are contributing through road pricing to investment in public transport, it is only right that that investment goes into modes of transport that will benefit them in the absence of the underground in their area. I hope that the Minister will take that point on board.
I have stressed the fact many times in the House that there is no underground network in south-east London. Other than the bus network and the over-subscribed Network SouthEast, there are no alternatives to the car for people travelling to central London. Unless we use our road network and turn sections of our roads over to guided bus links or other modes of transport of that sort, we shall have difficulty in getting people out of their cars and on to public transport in south-east London.
Let us consider the cost of extending rail links. The Jubilee line costs £172.5 million per km, and the Croydon tramlink costs £7.1 million per km. Guided bus links are considerably cheaper than that. The schemes in cities such as Ipswich and Leeds have succeeded in bringing people on to those forms of transport. The March edition of Local Transport Today contains articles about those schemes. Surveys demonstrate that few new journeys are made as a result of the schemes, but that significant numbers of people switch from their cars to public transport. That is the way forward for London.
My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said that he wanted the bus to become a racehorse, not a workhorse. I echo that. We must change people's attitudes to buses and other forms of public transport. We must improve links between existing modes of transport. People should view switching from a bus to the underground, or from a bus to the rail network, no differently from the way in which someone travelling on the London underground views changing from the Bakerloo line, for example, to the Central line.
By changing people's attitudes to public transport, we can start to address the growing problem of traffic levels in London. That would help to address the problems that my constituents face daily, with two of London's major arterial routes dissecting my constituency. I welcome the opening remarks of my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and I hope that in her summing up, my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London will take my comments on board.

Mrs. Eleanor Laing: Labour and Liberal Members are wrong to suggest, as they have been doing all evening, that Conservative Members of Parliament do not care about standards on the underground. We do. We all want the best possible service for the passengers on the London underground.
I care particularly because the underground is extremely important to those who live in my constituency. However, I was pleased to hear the Minister say—I entirely agree with him—that the underground is also important because London is the capital city, not just of England, but of the United Kingdom. That is why hon. Members in all parts of the House and people in all parts of the country should care about London Underground.
Before the election, the Government made promises, as they did on many subjects, that they would wave a magic wand and make the underground, like many other parts of our national life, better. However, they have done nothing about it. They have been delaying all this time. I should point out to Ministers that, when our party was in government, we privatised the entire British Rail network in 18 months—[Interruption.] Hon. Members should not say that we did it wrongly. We did not.

Mr. Andrew Love: rose—

Mrs. Laing: No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Those who have scrutinised the financial affairs of British Rail and the way in which it was privatised have criticised certain aspects of it, but not the whole of it. Hon. Members should think what British Rail was like before we privatised it, and imagine how much worse the railway would be now, if it did not have the benefit of private sector investment.
Labour Members and Ministers know that the only way to get the capital that is needed for London Underground is to privatise it, but they are so full of dogmatic ideas against privatisation, simply because it was such a great success for the Governments of Margaret Thatcher and of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major).

Mr. Love: I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. According to the recent National Audit Office report on the privatisation of Railtrack, the public purse lost between £600 million and £1.4 billion in that privatisation. It should not be forgotten that the National Audit Office is an extremely conservative body. That money could have been used to improve London underground.

Mrs. Laing: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—the National Audit Office acknowledged this—that privatisation of the railways was conducted in the best possible way at the time, and that the best possible financial and professional advice was accepted and acted on. If we knew in advance what would happen, we would all be rich from playing the markets because we would know where to invest.

Mr. Love: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Laing: No, I do not have time to give way again. The hon. Gentleman knows what point I am making,

and he knows that I am right. The railways would be very much worse if they had not had the benefit of privatisation.
Ministers have the problem of a rose by any other name smelling as sweet. They know that they want a privatised underground, but they do not want to privatise it because that is a successful Conservative policy which they cannot bear to acknowledge. In trying to give the rose some other name, they have created this PPP thing—public-private partnership—which simply delays matters. The people of London and of the United Kingdom as a whole would benefit far more if Ministers admitted what must be done and privatised the underground.
For the sake of time, I shall not go into all the detail as I might otherwise have done. I shall concentrate on one important point pertaining especially to my constituency, which is outwith the area to be covered by the proposed Greater London authority, and therefore outwith the area for which the mayor of London will have responsibility. The Minister for Transport in London has politely listened to me making this point before in a different way. I should like to ask her questions on a slightly different aspect of the same point.
After the Greater London authority assumes responsibility for the London underground and the mayor of London becomes accountable to the people of London for its running, who will be responsible to my constituents? Of whom will I be able to ask questions about the underground on behalf of my constituents? They will not have a vote for the mayor of London. If anybody standing for the post of mayor of London had to consider in which part of the underground they would invest and which part they would neglect, would not they propose investment in parts where people were able to vote for them, and neglect the parts for which they would not be responsible?
The Minister has patiently listened to that important point before. I hope that she has done so again. I am looking for assurances on behalf of my constituents that I will be able to continue to ask questions of Transport Ministers in the House about the underground once the mayor of London assumes responsibility for it. [Horn. MEMBERS: "There he is."] We might hope that my hon. Friends are right in referring to the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), who has just entered the Chamber. We certainly hope that the hon. Gentleman has a chance to put himself forward if he so wishes, and that the control freaks in his party allow him free speech.
We on the Conservative Benches care about the London underground. I certainly do because it is of prime importance to my constituents. I sincerely hope that the Government will stop shilly-shallying, delaying and depending on their dogmatic principles, and start thinking about what is best for the people who depend on the underground, and get on with the privatisation process as soon as possible.

Mr. Keith Darvill: Upminster is, of course, at the beginning of the District line. Many thousands of my constituents travel on the London underground each day, and many work at the Cranham depot, which supports the District line. Apart from education and health, I think that transport is the most important issue to Londoners. It is just as important to visitors to London, 90 per cent. of whom use the tube when visiting the capital.
There is no doubt that, if any Government failed to tackle the issues of investment and improvement in the underground, they would ultimately fail to secure the support of Londoners. Londoners know that the Conservative party failed miserably in office, and that is one of the many reasons why it remains so unpopular.
In many ways, the underground epitomises good public investment in infrastructure. It is a perfect example of how public investment can help the nation to prosper. What would London have been if that investment had not taken place? Each time that we travel on the underground, we are receiving a dividend from that past investment. I first used the underground in the early 1950s, to travel into central London from Leytonstone on the Central line. People were amazed at the frequency of the service and moved into that part of London because of the quality of that service.
Unfortunately, in the second half of this century, investment has not kept pace with need. If the post-King's Cross disaster investment and the much-belated Jubilee line extension investment are stripped out, the underlying investment over those 18 years has been miserable. Conservative Members should be ashamed at the wording of their motion, and, of course, of their management of the underground over 18 years.
London cannot flourish without higher levels of investment in public transport. In the global economy, cities across the world compete with each other, and our businesses cannot afford to have transport system infrastructure that receives no investment. It is astonishing that London has done so well, despite the decline in investment. However, we all know that the system is cracking under the strain and it will not provide anything like the level of service required without higher, and sustainable, levels of investment.
The recently published "Four World Cities Transport Study" compared four metropolises: London, Paris, New York and Tokyo. It contains lots of interesting statistics, but of most interest to me was the information contrasting Tokyo with London. In London, 64 per cent. of journeys are made by car from Monday to Friday; the figure for Tokyo is 27 per cent. In London, 19 per cent. of journeys are made on the railways and by underground; the figure for Tokyo is 38 per cent.
The study sets out many standards of reliability and punctuality: 98 per cent. of Tokyo's metro trains arrive within a minute of their scheduled time; in London, only 85 per cent. arrive within five minutes of scheduled time. London needs to address its punctuality record.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) will no doubt welcome the study's recommendation on fares. It suggests that London and New York could consider reducing high public transport fares, thus making public transport more affordable.
The Opposition motion makes no mention of their involvement in the decline in investment; no mention of their legacy; no mention of the inheritance that they left to this Government; and no mention of their role in the delayed start for the Jubilee line extension. For those reasons, their motion should be rejected.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: We have had an interesting debate, but perhaps its most salient feature is that not a single speaker—apart from the Minister of Transport—defended the proposal for a public-private partnership.
I, however, intend to follow the example of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) and will attempt to be a healer in this debate. That means that we must put behind us language such as that used by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), who talked of leaving the system to the "ravages" of the private sector. That is an unfair charge to make. [Interruption.] The Minister of Transport did not use that phrase; the hon. Member for Eltham accused him of leaving the system to the "ravages" of the private sector.
We must move ahead and begin with what the Labour party said at the election, which has certainly raised expectations about what it would deliver. I appreciate that the Minister of Transport did not read the London manifesto, because he was standing elsewhere, but it said:
Londoners want a clean, efficient, safe and reliable transport system to get them where they want when they want.
We can all agree with that, and we should start from the premise that we all have Londoners' interests close to our hearts and want to improve the system.
The manifesto went on to say:
In future, the Greater London Authority, elected by Londoners, will appoint the Board which runs London Transport.
That has changed; it will not happen for some time.
Much criticism was levelled at our privatisation proposals. The manifesto was, perhaps, being ironic in stating:
Much-needed investment would be delayed.
At present, it seems that the public-private sector partnership is leading to the delay of much-needed investment in the underground. Perhaps more extraordinarily, Labour is wedded to the dogma of public ownership
to safeguard its commitment to the public interest and guarantee value for money to taxpayers and passengers.
If public accountability had guaranteed value for money and the public interest, we would never have needed to transfer any of the state-owned interests to the private sector. The Labour party has now embraced the practical benefits of privatisation in industry after industry. It has even decided to reverse its position on, for instance, the national air traffic control service, which is now to be privatised.

Dr. Reid: No.

Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman is unwise to say that. He told the Select Committee that it was privatisation. Of course, he corrected himself quickly, because it is not linguistically politically correct to use the term "privatisation"; but, if selling 51 per cent. of a business is not privatisation, we did not privatise British Telecom until well after 1984, when we sold 51 per cent. of it. I seem to remember that the right hon. Gentleman opposed that at the time, although he did not know then that a public-private sector partnership was involved.
We need to put aside dogma. We also need to understand that, if we had waited for public support before doing the necessary things, we would not have privatised a single industry. The right hon. Gentleman's party made sure that the public were against us on every one of those privatisations.
Let us compare and contrast the privatised railway with the London underground, which is under state control and enjoying that public accountability and responsiveness to the public interest. At least the privatised railway has an investment programme of £17 billion for Railtrack, and huge new sums for rolling stock. Regulated fares are falling against the rate of inflation, and there have been substantial improvements in performance since privatisation. I think that even the right hon. Gentleman would accept that. The figures have been produced by Railtrack, and are not disputed by his Department.
There is still virtually no investment in London Underground, which is under state control. Fares are rising at well over the rate of inflation, and the service is falling to pieces. Where would the right hon. Gentleman have got £17 billion for rail infrastructure investment if the railways had not been privatised by the last Conservative Government?
New Labour opposed the investment that is now being made in the railways. That is the logic of the position taken by the right hon. Gentleman's party, as my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) so ably demonstrated. It now opposes the same sort of investment in the London underground. It is worth recalling what our policy for the underground was when we were in government. We made 10 commitments. Safety was a top priority; other commitments were to integrated through ticketing, the retention of travelcards, the retention of concessionary fares, shares for employees and passengers enabling them to acquire a real stake in the business, the protection of travel concessions and pensions, guaranteed levels of service, safeguards to keep stations open, controls on fares so that they did not increase above the rate of inflation as they have under the present Government, and, of course, investment. We said that investment should be a priority. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said earlier, we were planning a privatised underground with reinvestment of at least £750 million a year.

Mr. Gapes: If its transport policy was so good, why has the Conservative party, which used to have a huge number of seats in London, been decimated in the capital?

Mr. Jenkin: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question, because it enables me to say that, had we privatised the system 10 years ago, the benefits of privatisation would have been felt. British Airways is now the world's leading airline; perhaps London Underground would now have been the world's leading underground system.
State ownership does not give public accountability. Under state control, passengers are the last priority. I represent North Essex. My constituents commute to London and use the underground, which is more than can be said for the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid). Passengers, who are first and foremost in our mind, are helpless under state ownership. They are herded around like cattle. Their complaints are ignored. The state-owned service is a take-it-or-leave-it service for passengers.
I counsel the Minister of Transport to be cautious about the benefits of changing the management. We changed the management often for London Underground, but the same

fundamental problems remain. A state-owned industry, particularly a state-owned monopoly, is run in the interests of producers, not passengers. What is needed is a step-change in the culture and values of the management and staff of London Underground, an infusion of finance, and the discipline and values of the private sector. If that is what his public-private partnership is intended to achieve, bravo, we shall be the first to cheer him on, but, unfortunately, it does not look as though his PPP will deliver those benefits.
Passengers are at the heart of the debate. We did not do enough for the tube—I would be the first to acknowledge that—but the Government's policy means that they are doing even less for the tube because the investment that we were promising has been choked off. The cancellation of Conservative plans means the cancellation of the investment plans that would have flowed through to the benefit of passengers.

Mr. Martin Linton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way. I have little time.
What exactly are the Government's proposals? What does public-private partnership actually mean? It is a "have your cake and eat it" proposal. The problem is that the Government want the advantages and benefits of private capital, without any of the disciplines and loss of control that goes with transfer of ownership. The hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) is right: the policy is an expensive way in which to run a nationalised industry.
Having decided to go ahead, the Government published their proposals in March last year. Around 20 credible bidders have emerged, but the key issues all concern the uncertainty of the process. In August, the Government effectively asked bidders, "How on earth shall we manage the process?" They will not say when the deadlines are to be. They will not say when the public-private partnership is to happen. It is expensive to bid: it costs each bidder about £20 million. With no certainty of success, it is likely that some of the bidders will fall by the wayside: they will not put up the capital on a purely speculative basis when there is so much uncertainty.
There is a widespread feeling that one bidder is in a privileged position and that the process will be a shoe-in for Railtrack. I think it would be helpful if the Minister for Transport in London made it clear, particularly as there are no financial deadlines, that Railtrack is not getting privileged access because of its special relationship with the Government in view of the utility that it currently runs.
It is a little vain of the Government to protest that they are not negotiating against a deadline. What gives the lie to that is a written answer by the Deputy Prime Minister. It shows the outcome of the public spending review and confirms that the figure for London Transport
includes no provision for London Underground from 2000–01, from when a PPP is planned to be in place."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 379.]
There is a deadline for the PPP. The Government are busy advertising that they are not negotiating against a deadline because they are terrified of the consequences of reaching that deadline without a PPP in place.
Therefore, will the Minister for Transport in London confirm that the pre-qualification will take place in March or April this year, that there will formal invitations to tender by August and that we will have a PPP in place in 2000? Otherwise, the best-value process is nothing but a delay to the investment that the underground badly needs.
What will the subsidy regime be under the public-private partnership? Is there going to be a subsidy? Does the Minister seriously think that it will be possible to run London Underground without a public subsidy, unlike any other public metro system in the world and differently from the way in which we privatised the railway? [Interruption.]
I hope that we will put aside all the past dogmas. The politics of the cold war should be over and the tube should not be the plaything of politicians. There should be a third way—a way of consensus and co-operation for the benefit of Londoners. That third way will not be found if we stick doggedly to the old religion of public ownership and control where there is only one customer—the politicians.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) was urged to sit down by my hon. Friends because he has clearly been converted to the third way, which is inherent within the Labour Government. I had a strong feeling that, if he had been allowed to linger a little longer at the Dispatch Box, he might even have walked across and joined us to confirm that he has accepted what the Labour party has been arguing for a considerable time, which is that there is a third way to tackle the basic and truly important issue of how we provide a first-class public transport system in London. As the Minister of Transport said, the London Underground provides the arteries for this great city.
The Opposition must be regretting their choice of this topic for what is undoubtedly an opportunistic debate. Their amendment does not even mention the word "passenger". Despite the assiduous efforts of the Conservative Whips, only three Opposition Members were found to speak and sit on their Benches for the majority of the debate. The work of the Whips is still going on, and I can now see more Conservative Members in the Chamber, but only as the debate is drawing to a close. Their presence debunks, as powerfully as did my right hon. Friend the Minister, the somewhat pathetic claims by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) that they wanted to debate this issue because they are concerned for the vulnerable people of London.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South attempted to condemn a public-private partnership and demanded to know, as did the hon. Member for North Essex, the timetable for PPP. As my right hon. Friend the Minister said, he would dearly love to play poker with the hon. Member for Croydon, South. The inability to hide one's hand seems to be shared by all Conservative transport spokesmen. The hon. Gentleman ignored the realities that would have resulted from the Conservative Government's proposal for privatisation of the underground. He also ignored the deeply seated opposition felt by Londoners for those proposals.
I must tell the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) that rail privatisation took a great deal longer than 18 months. I believe that it took almost four

years. The previous Government said that privatisation of the underground would take at least four years. The costs of rail privatisation were astronomic and many of my hon. Friends have given the figures involved. Privatisation of the underground, which had been proposed by the previous Administration, would have had to be subsidised from the public purse for a considerable time, as has been the case for rail privatisation.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Ms Jackson: Regretfully, I have very little time.
The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) also talked about the timetabling for PPP. He is someone else who does not know how to play poker. My right hon. Friend the Minister dubbed the hon. Member for Croydon, South's inability to understand how to hide one's cards when one is in—[Interruption.]

Mr. Hughes: Give way now.

Ms Jackson: I would give way if the hon. Gentleman had asked more quietly and had not waved his arms, but I did not believe the request—he overplayed it somewhat.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said that had the hon. Member for Croydon, South been in charge of a firing squad, he would have put it in a circle. Had the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington been in charge of a firing squad, not only would he have asked it to stand in a circle, he would have asked the condemned men to hold the rifles.

Mr. Ottaway: The Minister of Transport talked about a firing squad in a circle and his willingness to play poker with me because he did not want to be up against a deadline. Does the Minister agree that the workers on the Jubilee line are working to the ultimate deadline?

Ms Jackson: The ultimate deadline in 1 January 2000. We have consistently said that the three phases of the Jubilee line extension will deliver the line on time.
There is little doubt from their remarks about the Jubilee line extension this evening that the Conservatives are not just uncommitted to this excellent example of what is best in British civil engineering, delivering a wonderful service to the capital city, but are looking for it to fail. Let the record show that, in this area, as in so many others, the official Opposition are busy talking the country down.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) suggested that the RMT was not happy with the public-private partnership. It argued strongly to my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister that such a system should be used on the Tyne and Wear metro. The PPP has certainly not slipped back.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) raised justifiable concerns about London Underground staff in relation to the PPP. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has written to all members of the union assuring them that there will be no change in their terms and conditions of service. They will be able to be members of the pension scheme. Only last week, he met union representatives to discuss their concerns and reassure them about what is being proposed.
The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) gave one of his usual fascinating contributions. However, we are talking about modernising. I was rather nonplussed by his analogies involving Lucknow—part of an empire that this nation has long since lost—and relief. I was expecting the word Mafeking to appear. I have no doubt that he will use such an analogy on another occasion.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford) highlighted the need for an integrated transport system. He reminded us that, despite 18 years of Conservative rule, there are no underground services running south of the river. We believe that our creation of a mayor and assembly, with an overarching policy for integrating transport in London, will have a major part to play.
I must point out to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East, and the hon. Members for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) and for Carshalton and Wallington that the creation of a PPP—a Government policy that the Government will complete—will not leave the mayor and assembly in a position to throw up their hands and say "Not me, guv" or regard the issue as a hot potato, because they will be responsible for delivering the services.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 335.

Division No. 50]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Flight, Howard


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Forth, Rt Hon Eric


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Fox, Dr Liam


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Fraser, Christopher


Baldry, Tony
Gale, Roger


Beggs, Roy
Garnier, Edward


Bercow, John
Gibb, Nick


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Blunt, Crispin
Gray, James


Boswell, Tim
Green, Damian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Greenway, John


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Brady, Graham
Hague, Rt Hon William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hammond, Philip


Browning, Mrs Angela
Hawkins, Nick


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hayes, John


Burns, Simon
Heald, Oliver


Butterfill, John
Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)



Jenkin, Bernard


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Key, Robert


Collins, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Cran, James
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Curry, Rt Hon David
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Lansley, Andrew


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Leigh, Edward


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Letwin, Oliver


Duncan, Alan
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Duncan Smith, Iain
Lidington, David


Evans, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Faber, David
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Fabricant, Michael
Luff, Peter


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas





MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Spring, Richard


MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Streeter, Gary


Major, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


Malins, Humfrey
Syms, Robert


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


May, Mrs Theresa
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Moss, Malcolm
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Nicholls, Patrick
Tredinnick, David


Ottaway, Richard
Trend, Michael


Paice, James
Tyrie, Andrew


Paterson,owen
Viggers, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Walter, Robert


Prior, David
Wardle, Charles


Randall, John
Waterson, Nigel



Wells, Bowen


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Whittingdale, John


Robathan, Andrew
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Wilkinson, John


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Willetts David


Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Ruffley, David
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


St Aubyn, Nick
Woodward, Shaun


Sayeed, Jonathan
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Shepherd, Richard



Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soames, Nicholas
Mr. Stephen Day and


Spicer, Sir Michael
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.




NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Caplin, Ivor


Allan, Richard
Casale, Roger


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Caton, Martin


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ashton, Joe
Chaytor, David


Austin, John
Chidgey, David


Baker, Norman
Chisholm, Malcolm


Ballard, Jackie
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Battle, John



Bayley, Hugh
Clark, Paul (Gillingham)


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Begg, Miss Anne
Clelland, David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Clwyd, Ann


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Coaker, Vermon


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Bennett, Andrew F
Cohen, Harry


Bermingham, Gerald
Coleman, Iain


Berry, Roger
Colman, Tony


Best, Harold
Connarty, Michael


Betts, Clive
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blackman, Liz
Cooper, Yvette


Blizzard, Bob
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Crausby, David


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bradshaw, Ben
Cummings, John


Brake, Tom
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)



Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)


Burden, Richard
Dafis, Cynog


Burnett, John
Dalyell, Tam


Burstow, Paul
Darvill, Keith


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Caborn, Richard
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Davidson, Ian


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Dawson, Hilton


Canavan, Dennis
Dean, Mrs Janet






Denham, John
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Donohoe, Brian H
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Keeble, Ms Sally


Dowd, Jim
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Drown, Ms Julia
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kemp, Fraser


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)


Edwards, Huw
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Efford, Clive
Khabra, Piara S


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kidney, David


Ennis, Jeff
Kilfoyle, Peter


Fearn, Ronnie
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Kirkwood, Archy


Fitzsimons, Loma
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Flint, Caroline
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Follett, Barbara
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Laxton, Bob


Foster, Don (Bath)
Leslie, Christopher


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Levitt, Tom


Gapes, Mike
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Gardiner, Barry
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Linton, Martin


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
Livingstone, Ken


Gibson, Dr Ian
Livsey, Richard


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Lock, David


Godsiff, Roger
Love, Andrew


Goggins, Paul
McAllion, John


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McAvoy, Thomas


Gorrie, Donald
McCabe, Steve


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McDonagh, Siobhain


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McFall, John


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Gunnell, John
McLeish, Henry


Hain, Peter
McNulty, Tony


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
MacShane, Denis


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hanson, David
McWalter, Tony


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
McWilliam, John


Harris, Dr Evan
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Harvey, Nick
Mallaber, Judy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Marek, Dr John


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Heppell, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hesford, Stephen
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hill, Keith
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hinchliffe, David
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Martlew, Eric


Home Robertson, John
Maxton, John


Hoon, Geoffrey
Meale, Alan


Hope, Phil
Merron, Gillian


Hopkins, Kelvin
Michael, Alun


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Howells, Dr Kim
Milburn, Alan


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Miller, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Mitchell, Austin


Humble, Mrs Joan
Moffatt, Laura


Hurst, Alan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hutton, John
Moore, Michael


Iddon, Dr Brian
Moran, Ms Margaret


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Jamieson, David
Morley, Elliot


Jenkins, Brian
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
Mountford, Kali


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Mullin, Chris



Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Naysmith, Dr Doug





Norris, Dan
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Oaten, Mark
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Soley, Clive


Öpik, Lembit
Southworth, Ms Helen


Organ, Mrs Diana
Squire, Ms Rachel


Palmer, Dr Nick
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Pearson, Ian
Stevenson, George


Pendry, Tom
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Perham, Ms Linda
Stinchcombe, Paul


Pickthall, Colin
Stoate, Dr Howard


Pike, Peter L
Stott, Roger


Plaskitt, James
Stringer, Graham


Pollard, Kerry
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Pond, Chris
Stunell, Andrew


Pope, Greg
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Pound, Stephen
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Prescott, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Primarolo, Dawn
Temple—Morris, Peter


Purchase, Ken
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Quinn Lawrie
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Radice, Giles
Timms, Stephen


Rammell, Bill
Tipping, Paddy


Rapson, Syd
Touhig, Don


Raynsford, Nick
Trickett, Jon


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Rendel, David
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)



Walley, Ms Joan



Ward, Ms Claire


Rooker, Jeff
Wareing, Robert N


Rooney, Terry
Watts, David


Ruane, Chris
Webb, Steve


Ruddock, Ms Joan
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Wicks, Malcolm


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Ryan, Ms Joan



Sanders, Adrian
Willis, Phil


Savidge, Malcolm
Winnick, David


Sawford, Phil
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Sedgemore, Brian
Wise, Audrey


Shaw, Jonathan
Wood, Mike


Sheerman, Barry
Woolas, Phil


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Worthington, Tony


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Singh, Marsha
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Skinner, Dennis
Wyatt, Derek


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Question accordingle negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 159.

Division No. 51]
[10.13 pm


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Beggs, Roy


Ainger, Nick
Bennett, Andrew F


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Bermingham, Gerald


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Berry, Roger


Ashton, Joe
Best, Harold


Barnes, Harry
Betts, Clive


Barron, Kevin
Blackman, Liz


Battle, John
Blizzard, Bob


Bayley, Hugh
Blunkett, Rt Hon David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Boateng, Paul


Begg, Miss Anne
Bradley, Keith (Withington)






Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Godsiff, Roger


Bradshaw, Ben
Goggins, Paul


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Burden, Richard
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Byers, Rt Hon Stephen
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Grocott, Bruce


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Grogan, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Gunnell, John


Campbell—Savours, Dale
Hain, Peter


Cann, Jamie
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Caplin, Ivor
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Casale, Roger
Hanson, David


Caton, Martin
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Chaytor, David
Healey, John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clapham, Michael
Heppell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hesford, Stephen


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hill, Keith



Hinchliffe, David


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Home Robertson, John


Clelland, David
Hoon, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Ann
Hope, Phil


Coaker, Vernon
Hopkins, Kelvin


Coffey, Ms Ann
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cohen, Harry
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Coleman, Iain
Howells, Dr Kim


Colman, Tony
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Connarty, Michael
Humble, Mrs Joan


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hurst, Alan


Cooper, Yvette
Hutton, John


Corbett, Robin
Iddon, Dr Brian


Cousins, Jim
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Crausby, David
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Jamieson, David


Cummings, John
Jenkins, Brian


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)



Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)



Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Darvill, Keith
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Davidson, Ian
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Dawson, Hilton
Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Kelly, Ms Ruth


Denham, John
Kemp, Fraser


Dobbin, Jim
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Khabra, Piara S


Donaldson, Jeffrey
Kidney, David


Donohoe, Brian H
Kilfoyle, Peter


Doran, Frank
King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)


Dowd, Jim
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Drown, Ms Julia
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Laxton, Bob


Edwards, Huw
Leslie, Christopher


Efford, Clive
Levitt, Tom


Ellman, Mrs Louise
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Ennis, Jeff
Lewis, Terry (Worsley)


Field, Rt Hon Frank
Linton, Martin


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Flint, Caroline
Lock, David


Follett, Barbara
Love, Andrew


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McAllion, John


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gapes, Mike
McCabe, Steve


Gardiner, Barry
McDonagh, Siobhain


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McFall, John


Gibson, Dr Ian
McIsaac, Shona


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McLeish, Henry


Godman, Dr Norman A
McNulty, Tony





MacShane, Denis
Ruane, Chris


Mactaggart, Fiona
Ruddock, Ms Joan


McWalter, Tony
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McWilliam, John
Ryan, Ms Joan


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Savidge, Malcolm


Mallaber, Judy
Sawford, Phil


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Shaw, Jonathan


Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)
Sheerman, Barry


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Singh, Marsha


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Marshall—Andrews, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Maxton, John
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Meale, Alan
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Merron, Gillian
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Michael, Alun
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Milburn, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Miller, Andrew
Starkey, Dr Phyllis


Mitchell, Austin
Stevenson, George


Moffatt, Laura
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moran, Ms Margaret
Stoate, Dr Howard


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stott, Roger


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Mountford, Kali
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)



Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Temple—Morris, Peter


Norris, Dan
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Organ, Mrs Diana
Timms, Stephen


Palmer, Dr Nick
Tipping, Paddy


Pearson, Ian
Touhig, Don


Pendry, Tom
Trickett, Jon


Perham, Ms Linda
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Pickthall, Colin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Pike, Peter L
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Plaskitt, James
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pollard, Kerry
Walley, Ms Joan


Pond, Chris
Ward, Ms Claire


Pope, Greg
Watts, David


Pound, Stephen
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prescott, Rt Hon John



Primarolo, Dawn
Winnick, David


Purchase, Ken
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Quinn, Lawrie
Wise, Audrey


Radice, Giles
Wood, Mike


Rammell, Bill
Woolas, Phil


Rapson, Syd
Worthington, Tony


Raynsford, Nick
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)
Wyatt, Derek


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)




Tellers for the Ayes:


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Kevin Hughes and


Rooney, Terry
Mr. Robert Ainsworth.




NOES


Allan, Richard
Blunt, Crispin


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brady, Graham


Baker, Norman
Brake, Tom


Baldry, Tony
Brazier, Julian


Ballard, Jackie
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Browning, Mrs Angela


Bercow, John
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)






Burnett, John
Kirkwood, Archy


Burns, Simon
Laing, Mrs Eleanor


Burstow, Paul
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Butterfill, John
Lansley, Andrew


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Leigh, Edward


Cash, William
Letwin, Oliver


Chidgey, David
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Chope, Christopher
Lidington, David


Clappison, James
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey
Luff, Peter


Collins, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cormack, Sir Patrick
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Cran, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Curry, Rt Hon David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Major, Rt Hon John


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Malins, Humfrey


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Duncan, Alan
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Duncan Smith, Iain
May, Mrs Theresa


Evans, Nigel
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Faber, David
Moore, Michael


Fabricant, Michael
Moss, Malcolm


Fallon, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Fearn, Ronnie
Oaten, Mark


Flight, Howard
Ottaway, Richard


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Paice, James


Foster, Don (Bath)
Paterson, Owen


Fox, Dr Liam
Pickles, Eric


Fraser, Christopher
Prior, David


Gale, Roger
Randall, John


Garnier, Edward
Redwood, Rt Hon John


George, Andrew (St Ives)
Rendel, David


Gibb, Nick
Robathan, Andrew


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gorrie, Donald
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Gray, James
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Green, Damian
Ruffley, David


Greenway, John
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gummer, Rt Hon John
St Aubyn, Nick


Hague, Rt Hon William
Sanders, Adrian


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Sayeed, Jonathan


Hammond, Philip
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Harris, Dr Evan
Shepherd, Richard


Harvey, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Hawkins, Nick
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Hayes, John
Soames, Nicholas


Heald, Oliver
Spicer, Sir Michael


Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David
Spring, Richard


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Steen, Anthony


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Streeter, Gary


Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)
Stunell, Andrew


Hunter, Andrew
Swayne, Desmond


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Syms, Robert


Jenkin, Bernard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)
Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)


Key, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkbride, Miss Julie
Taylor, Sir Teddy





Tredinnick, David
Willetts, David


Trend, Michael
Willis, Phil


Tyrie, Andrew
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Walter, Robert
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Wardle, Charles
Woodward, Shaun


Waterson, Nigel
Yeo, Tim


Webb, Steve
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Wells, Bowen



Whittingdale, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann
Mr. Stephen Day and


Wilkinson, John
Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that the Government inherited a substantial investment backlog in London Underground and that this backlog arose from the previous Government's ideological antipathy to public expenditure and unwillingness to seek genuine and viable partnership between the public and private sectors; welcomes the Government's rejection of the Conservatives' policy of wholesale privatisation and applauds it for its thoroughgoing investigation of a public-private partnership as a means to secure necessary investment funds; notes that by providing additional funding of £365 million and that by bringing forward two Private Finance Initiative deals on ticketing and the power distribution system, the Government has already ensured that the Underground will benefit from around £1 billion of investment over the next two years; and is confident that the present Government's approach to London Underground will secure value for money for passengers and the taxpayer and give Londoners an underground system which meets their needs, is fast, reliable, comfortable and worthy of such a great capital city.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That the Business of the House Order of 25th January shall apply also to the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 1999 tabled on 26th January.[Mr. Betts.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

HALLMARKING

That the Hallmarking (Hallmarking Act Amendment) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 2978) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Mr. Betts.]

Question agreed to.

Local Government Ombudsman (Wales)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Mr. Don Touhig: I very much regret that I have had to ask for this debate. I did so because of what I believe is the indifferent response of the local government ombudsman in Wales to a serious matter that I have raised with him. Before becoming a Member of Parliament, I spent 20 years serving as a councillor, and I hold strongly to the view that local councils must be accountable for their actions. More than that, they must be seen to be accountable and they must act in an open and transparent manner. That is the only way to retain public confidence and appreciation of the valuable services provided by local councils, and the only way in which local councils can gain respect for the decisions they take.
The public must have confidence in the Commissioner for Local Administration in Wales, more commonly known as the ombudsman. As we all know, the ombudsman has a crucial role: he has the task of policing local councils and ensuring that any complaints made against a council by the public are properly investigated. I know from experience the extreme frustration felt by any individual who thinks that he or she cannot obtain a fair and impartial investigation after arriving at the belief that the local council has acted improperly. That is why individuals who have a grievance against their local council often look to the ombudsman for justice.
On the whole, the ombudsman does a good job and provides an essential public service. I will go so far as to say that I should not be opposed to the ombudsman being given even greater powers to ensure that a local council found guilty of maladministration is made to change its ways. Having said that, I regret having to express my anger and disappointment at the ombudsman, following an investigation into a complaint made against Caerphilly county borough council last year.
On 10 August 1998, the ombudsman published a report after investigating a complaint made against the council following its decision to refuse a planning application. In his report, the ombudsman concluded that the council was guilty of maladministration, because one of its members, at a meeting of the planning committee, had failed to declare an interest—that he was a friend of the principal person opposing that planning application. By not declaring an interest in the matter when it came before the planning committee, it was said by the person who called in the ombudsman to investigate the complaint, the councillor in question had influenced the committee to refuse the planning application. I add, less in mitigation than to put the fact on the record, that the appeal against the council's decision to refuse the planning application, which went to the Welsh Office, was eventually turned down.
Although only one councillor was cited in the original complaint upheld by the ombudsman, the ombudsman went on to name three other councillors on the grounds that they were members of the same local Labour party branch as the person who had opposed the planning application in the first place. I have no criticism to make of the ombudsman's decision, in so far as he was satisfied

that the four councillors were in breach of the national code of local government conduct as it relates to members declaring an interest: they knew the person who opposed the planning application. Indeed, the ombudsman commented that he had a statutory duty to name the councillors involved and I do not challenge that, because the House decided to give the ombudsman that responsibility, so he is right to carry it out.
My concern is that, in his report, the ombudsman made the following statement:
the decision to refuse the planning application was instigated by the local councillors in a private meeting".
Let me stress, there was no private meeting of councillors. The report was wrong, and the ombudsman was wrong. Caerphilly county borough council's monitoring officer, who is the person charged with providing the ombudsman with the information necessary to draw up his report, made the following statement:
the decision to refuse the planning application was instigated by local councillors at a previous meeting".
That was a "previous" meeting of the planning committee, not a "private" meeting.
Despite being given the opportunity to correct the error, the ombudsman declined. The error was the reason for the following comment that the ombudsman made when he censured the council:
It is of course quite natural and reasonable for councillors to discuss in private, issues due to be considered by the Council at a formal meeting.
What is not acceptable, however, is for decisions on a planning application to be made prematurely in private by a small group of local councillors before the material issues have been fully considered by the appropriate committee and the arguments for and against a particular course of action have been fully aired. Such a process is unacceptable.
Let me stress that there was no private meeting of a small group of councillors. It never ever took place.
The serious inaccuracy was queried with the ombudsman in a letter from the council dated 28 July last year containing its comment on his draft report. I have the letter here. On page 17, paragraph 3 the ombudsman was asked the specific question:
Could you please explain the reference to a private meeting".
The ombudsman replied on 31 July with a two-sentence letter that did not even acknowledge the question from the council. What is the point of circulating a draft report on a complaint against a council to the council, its officers and so on and then ignoring the comments on that draft report?
Despite being made aware of this considerable error, on which he based a substantial part of his criticism of the councillors, the ombudsman made no attempt to correct it. As a result of the inaccuracy, the councillors involved were the subject of newspaper stories and banner headlines which questioned their integrity and brought each of them into grave disrepute. There were headlines such as "Councillors rapped by ombudsman". The story said that the ombudsman criticised the councillors for meeting in private and predetermining the planning application. Another story was headed "Councillor: I acted improperly", and made more references to private meetings on planning matters. Another headline was "Councillors were wrong." Again, the story contained references to the councillors holding a "private", not a "previous", meeting of the planning committee. Another


story with the headline "Rapped over the knuckles" contained further references to the councillors holding private meetings. Such meetings never took place.
I stress that I do not challenge the core conclusion reached by the ombudsman in his report. He investigated and reached his conclusions and I do not challenge them at all. I do challenge his arrogance in failing to correct a blatant and serious error in the report. More than that, I am advised that he later refused to alter the report or reissue it. He simply offered a perfunctory apology to the councillors involved, saying that a typographical error had been made. How many times have we heard the poor old typist blamed for getting it wrong?
It cannot be right to base a report's conclusion, even in part, on a typing error and not issue an amended report. Stating that there were private meetings when there were none and linking the term "private meeting" to the main findings of the report had serious consequences for the councillors and the local authority.
The suggestion that the councillors met in secret to predetermine a planning decision has had an appalling impact on the public perception of the council in general and the councillors in particular. They live in a small valley community where everyone knows everyone else. I know the councillors well. They have told me that in the churches, chapels, shops, pubs and clubs, they have all been subjected to the odd remark. People say, "What do you think about councillors having these private meetings to predetermine planning matters?" A private meeting never took place. The councillors have had their good names taken away from them without justification. I know them; they are decent people who have given years of public service.
Like all Members of the House, everyone in public life can expect to take knocks from time to time, but no public official has the right to damage another public servant's reputation unjustly. I have no criticism of the press reports of the matter. The press reported what the ombudsman had put in his report. What is at issue is the councillors' integrity and the truth of the report.
The impression remains even today that the councillors met in private to determine the planning application before it was considered by the appropriate committee. It is a matter of record that all the comments made by the councillors named in the report were made in public at open meetings that were attended by the press and members of the public. The failure of the ombudsman to correct such an evident wrong has affected public confidence in the councillors and the council. That is most unjust.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, by and large, the ombudsman seems to be a reliable point of contact for people with complaints? Does he agree that, above all, it is absolutely vital that the ombudsman be seen to have an impeccable record of scrutiny and scrupulous decision-making because he or she is the last point of call for those who have a complaint about a local authority decision?

Mr. Touhig: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I have made that point. I subscribe to the ombudsman's role, but in this case he has acted unjustly. Surely his role is to serve justice, not to create an injustice, which is what he has done in this instance.
Had the ombudsman corrected the error, I would not be raising the matter tonight. At no stage has he shown a willingness to correct the error. He is not prepared to publish a new report. He did not correct the error when the council's head of legal services wrote to him querying the reference to the private meeting. In fact, when he replied, he dismissed the error as if it were a peripheral matter, and he has not corrected it since.
I appreciate that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary has limited powers with which to deal with the ombudsman, who must be seen to be distanced from the Government as well as local government, but perhaps he might ask the ombudsman in for a cup of tea and a chat and point out to him that there is an evident injustice in this case which he needs to put right. He should not be allowed to make such a serious error without redress. I am certain that, if the shoe were on the other foot and the ombudsman were investigating a similar error by a local council, he would have plenty to say, and rightly so.
The ombudsman is a public servant responsible for upholding the rights of individuals to complain against the actions of local government by investigating those complaints and making a judgment. However, the ombudsman needs to be told that he does not truly enhance justice and fair play or the rights of the individual making the complaint if he infringes, indeed ignores, the rights of those being investigated and delivers an injustice to them.
If we are to retain confidence in the ombudsman as an individual and in the office that he occupies, he must not be seen to be beyond criticism. Like the councils that he investigates, he makes judgments and if he gets them wrong, he has a duty to put them right.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Jon Owen Jones): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) for raising the important issue of the local government ombudsman.
Before answering the specific points that my hon. Friend has made, I should like to put on record my appreciation of the sterling work that the local government ombudsman and his staff have done and are doing in policing local government in Wales. He has responsibility for investigating allegations of maladministration involving injustice, and last year received more than 1,048 new complaints.
My hon. Friend's concern arises from the ombudsman's investigation into Caerphilly county borough council. In August, the ombudsman issued a report naming four Caerphilly councillors for their non-disclosure of private and personal non-pecuniary interests when they spoke against a planning application for the extension of a dwelling at meetings of the authority's planning committee. The four councillors supported the views of the only objector against the application with whom they were closely connected in a personal and, in one case, a business capacity. Three of those councillors were also fellow members of the same local ward Labour party as that objector. Their objections were instrumental in the council refusing planning permission for the extension in spite of the fact that officers of the council had recommended its approval.
Although the four councillors were fully aware of the identity of the objector, not one of them declared their interest in any of the planning committee meetings.
That was a clear breach of the national code of local government conduct, which is clear about when interests should be declared. It says:
You should not allow the impression to be created that you are, or may be, using your position to promote a private or personal interest rather than forwarding the general public interest. Private and personal interests include those of your family and friends as well as those arising through membership of, or association with, clubs, societies and other organisations such as the Freemasons, trade unions and voluntary bodies".
The code goes on to say:
If you have a private or personal non-pecuniary interest in a matter arising from a local authority meeting, you should always disclose it, unless it is insignificant, or one which you share with other members of the public generally as a ratepayer, a community charge payer or an inhabitant of the area".
In this context, the councillors' association with the objector and their membership of a local ward political party were relevant issues. In those circumstances, where there has been a breach of the code, the ombudsman has a statutory duty to identify the councillors in his report.
Unfortunately, as my hon. Friend said, there was a typographical error in the ombudsman's final report, and a reference to a "previous meeting" mistakenly became a reference to a "private meeting". The error occurred during the copy typing of the monitoring officer's evidence, which was referred to in the ombudsman's final report. The typographical error, referring to a paragraph of the report which was highlighted by the press, implied that the three ward councillors had had a private meeting before the planning committee to determine the application. There was no evidence of such a meeting. I can well understand that local councillors would be aggrieved at being criticised for something that did not occur. I personally would like to record my regret that that happened.
The typographical error, however, had no bearing on the ombudsman's conclusion or his naming of the councillors. The ombudsman's decision to name the councillors would have been the same even if there had been no typographical error. The naming arose from his statutory duty and the fact that the councillors had not declared their interests during successive meetings of Caerphilly council's planning committee.
It is most unfortunate that the typographical error was not spotted before the ombudsman's report was published in its final form. However, it is important that the error does not divert attention from the ombudsman's findings in this case, which I regard as extremely serious.

Mr. Touhig: I must point out that in a letter of 28 July from Caerphilly county borough council, the ombudsman was asked the specific question:
could you please explain the reference to a 'private meeting'?".
The fact that there was a query over the report was flagged up with the ombudsman, but he did not bother to respond in any way.

Mr. Jones: My hon. Friend anticipates the point that I am about to make.
The findings call into question the effectiveness of the existing national code of local government conduct, which requires councillors to act properly when reaching

decisions, such as determining planning applications. I expect all Welsh councils to ensure that their elected members are fully aware of the requirements of the existing national code.
My hon. Friend's specific concerns are twofold. The first is that the typographical error was pointed out to the ombudsman before the report was published, but the ombudsman declined to change it. The second is that, although the ombudsman has now accepted the mistake, he refuses to apologise.
On the first point, I am satisfied that the ombudsman acted reasonably and did all that he could to ensure that there were no errors in his final report. The ombudsman circulated the draft report, for comment and for the purpose of checking its accuracy, to all those who gave evidence in this case, including the four councillors, the council's chief executive, the monitoring officer and other senior officers. He warned the council and councillors of his duty to name the councillors, given the apparent breaches of the code. The fact that there was a typographical error was not pointed out to the ombudsman. The council's members services manager did, however, raise a query as to what was meant by "private meeting".
It is understandable that the ombudsman ignored the members services manager's question. The ombudsman was at that stage unaware of the typographical error and believed, wrongly, that, as the words "private meeting" had been taken from the monitoring officer's evidence, it was a matter for the council itself to explain. The members services manager's question was not framed in a way that suggested that there had been an error or that it was an amendment to the text of the ombudsman's draft report. The monitoring officer had already written his response to the report and made no reference to any typographical error. Not one of the three ward councillors commented on the draft.

Mr. Touhig: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. I stress that the ombudsman wrote back on 31 July in response to the letter from the members services manager, and did not respond to any of the points raised there. If he thought at that time that the phrase "private meeting" was a matter for the council's monitoring officer, he should have written back and said, "I do not know what this is about. It is a matter for you, as the monitoring officer, to discover." The ombudsman did that, but only after the matter had been raised with him again some weeks later. He did not respond to the query at all.

Mr. Jones: I understand why my hon. Friend raises that point. It is also understandable, however, that the ombudsman did not believe at that stage that the original draft of the report was in any way incorrect. The council was responsible for the comments that had been made.
For the sake of completeness, I should make it clear that, once the error was discovered after the report's publication, the option of amending and reissuing the report was not available to the ombudsman. As the ombudsman is by law "functus officio"—I must be careful how I pronounce that—once he has issued his final decision, he cannot amend it in any way, unless he is ordered to do so by the courts following, for example, judicial review. The courts are likely to order him to do so only where there is a significant error or omission.
The second issue raised by my hon. Friend was that the ombudsman has accepted the mistake, but has refused to apologise for it. I am satisfied that, after the discovery of the typographical error, the ombudsman acted properly and did everything possible to explain the position and to inform those affected by the report of the error.
It is also my understanding that the ombudsman apologised for the error. He met the leader, chief executive and monitoring officer of Caerphilly council to explain the reason for the error and to apologise. He followed up the meeting with a letter, again apologising for the error. He also asked that his letter be reported to full council, which it was, and placed with the report for public inspection. Furthermore, he sent a letter to all recipients of the final report, including my hon. Friend, pointing out the error and apologising for it.
On a point of procedure, I remind my hon. Friend that the ombudsman is not accountable for his decisions to the Secretary of State for Wales or to Parliament. He is entirely independent, above political influence, being appointed directly by Her Majesty the Queen. It is important that such independence is maintained and not put in doubt. The proper and ultimate course of action open to anyone wishing to challenge an ombudsman's final decision is to seek a judicial review of that decision by the High Court.
The failure of councillors to follow the existing code of local government conduct suggests the need for a new code that is easier to understand and to which councilors

are fully signed up. The Government intend to introduce such a code—the national code of conduct for local government in Wales—as part of an ethical framework. The Government will also introduce a much tougher enforcement regime, including an independent standards commission, to take effect in the event that codes are breached.
I hope that all councils will note the ombudsman's report in this case and will take steps to ensure that their councillors are fully aware of the requirements that the existing code places upon them. The public expect, and should receive, the highest standards of conduct from their elected members. Those elected members often do a difficult job. We owe it to them to ensure that the codes of conduct are easily understood. Clearly, a mistake was made by the councillors in this case. For that mistake, they paid a heavy price—a price that was made heavier by the typographical error that occurred.
I well understand why councillors were aggrieved, and why the local Member of Parliament would see it as his duty to try to do what he could to ensure that the public understood that the error, which was highlighted in the press, was typographical. There was no private meeting, and councillors were not responsible for that error.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes to Eleven o'clock.